C HAPTER 4 

Historical and Current 

Status of Terrestrial 

Species and the 

Effects of Proposed 

Alternatives 

John E Lehmkuhl 

Martin G. Raphael 

Richard S. Holthausen 

J. Randal Hickenbottom 

Robert H. Naney 

J. Stephen Shelly 
John F. Lehmkuhl is a wildlife ecologist with the USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research

Station, Wenatchee, WA.

Martin G. Raphael is a research wildlife biologist with the USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest

Research Station, Olympia, WA.

Richard S. Holthausen is a wildlife ecologist with the USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research

Station, Flagstaff, AZ.

J. Randal Hickenbottom is a wildlife biologist with the USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region,

Portland, OR.

Robert H. Naney is a wildlife biologist with the USDA Forest Service, Okanogan National Forest,

Okanogan, WA.

J. Stephen Shelly is a regional botanist with the USDA Forest Service, Northern Region, Missoula, MT.

" S38 Terrestrial
TABLE OF 

CONTENTS 

Methods for Assessing Effects on Terrestrial Species 

Methods for Assessing Species and Habitat Outcomes Under the 

Preliminary Draft EIS Mternatives 

Overview of the assessment process 

Outcome scales 

Factors considered in judgments 

Analysis of the judgments 

Interpretation, Limitations, and Assumptions of the Analysis 

Interpretation of results 

Uncertainty 

Limitations of the analysis 

Assumptions used in analysis 

Selection of Species for Analysis 

Non-vascular plants and allies 

Vascular plants 

Invertebrates 

Vertebrates 

Effects of Options on Terrestrial Species 

Vascular Plants 

Amphibians and Reptiles 

Birds 

Waterbirds and shorebirds 

Upland gamebirds, hawks, falcons, pigeons, and owls 

Woodpeckers, nuthatches, and swifts 

Cuckoos, hummingbirds, and passerines 

541 

541 

541 

543 

544 

545 

546 

546 

547 

547 

548 

549 

550 

550 

552 

552 

554 

554 

571 

591 

591 

604 

621 

631 

:;:;:::;:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 

Terrestrial UiiiiiU~iiiiiU.ii 
§40 Terrestrial

Mammals 659

Bats 659

Other small mammals 670

Carnivores 672

Ungulates 682

Summary Effects by Alternative 683

Species Outcomes 683

Similarity of Alternatives 686

Uncertainty 688

References 691

Appendix 4-A 701

Appendix 4-B 702

Appendix 4-C 706

Appendix 4-D 717
Methods for Assessing Effects on Terrestrial Species

The purpose of this analysis is to provide an Methods for Assessing Species and

assessment of the degree to which habitat condi- Habitat Outcomes Under the

tions on lands administered by the Forest Service T» l* • T-* fL r?TO AI^

(FS) and Bureau of Land Management (ELM) Preliminary Draft EIS Alternatives

within the Basin1 contribute to long-term persis- The process for assessing species and habitat outtence (at least 100 years) of plants and animals. comes in the Columbia River Basin drew on preSecondarily, we examine the extent to which other vious efforts, such as that conducted by the Forest

lands and other influences might affect popula- Ecosystem Management Assessment Team

tions of species over and above the influences of (FEMAT) in 1993, and also drew substantially on

habitat conditions on federally administered efforts made as part of the Interior Columbia

lands. This assessment is not a quantitative popu- Basin Ecosystem Management Project (ICBEMP)

lation viability analysis as it does not employ an assessment during 1994 and 1995. The objective

explicit model of genetic or demographic risk to of this assessment was to provide decision makers

species persistence. Rather, we view our assess- with as much information as possible about the

ment as a structured and reasoned series of judg- expected effects of the preliminary draft Environments about projected amounts and distributions mental Impact Statement (EIS) alternatives on

of habitat and the likelihood that such habitat species habitats and populations (appendix I),

would allow populations of selected species to per- This assessment does not provide a quantified

sist over the long run. The assessment meets the measure of viability, but instead, provides inforessential criterion of a population viability analy- mation needed to assess alternatives relative to the

sis, to provide an estimate of the likelihood that a National Forest Management Act, the Endangered

population will persist to some arbitrarily chosen Species Act, the National Environmental Policy

future time (Boyce 1992). However, it does so Act, and other decision criteria,

through the use of structured professional judgment rather than through the use of population Overview of the assessment process —

projection models. The methodology and its limi- Assessments were based on expert opinion contations are discussed below. cerning the likely outcome for species and their

habitats under a variety of possible management

alternatives. Expert judgments were solicited from

eight expert panels (appendix 4-A). The panels

were provided with the following information:

(A) Species information

• Maps of species' ranges within the Basin.2

• Maps of vascular plant species' locations.2

• Tables of species' habitat associations.2

'The Basin is defined as those portions of the Columbia River basin inside the United States east of the crest of the Cascades and

those portions of the Klamath River basin and the Great Basin in Oregon.

2

Source: Species-Environment Relations (SER) database. On file with: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, U.S.

Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project, 112 E. Poplar,

Walla Walla, WA. 99362.

Terrestrial £43,
• Information on documented population • Specific standards under which activities will be

declines or increases.' conducted.5

• Information on general species' abundance.' Species' habitat area tables, provided to the panels,

T r . • , i 1-1 were developed using (1) the habitat relations

• Information on species demographic character- contained within the SER database> and (2) the

istics, where known. • • • i j r u i j vegetation projections completed tor the land-

(B) Information on the alternatives

 scaPe

 analysis (see footnote 4). The SER database

was used to determine which vegetation types are

• Extent of species' habitats, as defined by vegeta- suitable habitat for the species. The areas of suittion communities, at three points in time able vegetation types (that is, within the species'

(under historic conditions, under current condi- ranges) were then summed. The projections made

tions, and under conditions projected 100 for the landscape analysis and used for this assessyears into the future) under each of the ment

 incorporated management effects, succesalternatives. sional processes, and stochastic effects such as

• Maps of management prescription allocations by

 insect irTMP«ons and large-scale wildfires,

alternative. Based on the above information, the experts were

• Maps and tables of vegetative community types

 asked to make

 judgments about the likely distribprojected over the next 100 years.4 utlon of eacj

 sPecles and lts habltat' Judgments

were made for each of the three timeframes (his-

• Information on types of land management toric, current, and future) under each preliminary

activities planned under each of the alternatives.4 draft EIS alternative (see appendix I). These judg-

..... . r , , j ments were made separately for each of the two

• lables showing the amount or area that would „,,, ~

r

 ,(vr , . „,„

, re , , ° . . . , , , . , hlb areas, eastern Oregon/ Washington his

be arrected by activities under each alternative, /cnci JLT T /- r i_- ?>• r> • ' (hhlb), and the Upper Columbia River Basin

• Qualitative estimates of grazing effects, fire (UCRB) EIS. For each timeframe and EIS area,

effects, and the extent of silvicultural activities the experts were asked to make two distinct judgunder each of the land management prescrip- ments. The first judgment rated the likelihoods of

tions which were made by the Landscape Team. species' distribution, based only on habitat condiThese estimates would be used to implement tions on Federal lands and the natural history

the alternatives. characteristics of the species. The second judgment was a cumulative effects analysis of the likely

• Maps of biological reserves for alternatives condition of species' populations across all ownerwhere new reserves would be designated.5

 ships in each of the two ms areas This took imo

• Descriptions of riparian management strategies account habitat conditions across all ownerships,

for each alternative.5 natural history of the species, and all other influences on the species (for example, water pollution

'Sources: SER database and species-specific literature reviews. On file with: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, U.S.

Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project, 112 E. Poplar,

Walla Walla, WA. 99362.

'Source: Chapter 2. Landscape Ecology, Landscape Team projections of vegetation.

'Source: (Chapter 3, Description of Alternatives). U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; U.S. Department of Interior,

Bureau of Land Management. February 1996. Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project; Upper Columbia River

Basin Preliminary Draft Environmental Impact Statements. On file with: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, U.S.

Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project, 112 E. Poplar,

Walla Walla, WA. 99362.

542 Terrestrial
and trapping). Thus, the first judgment was based the initial judgments. Consensus was not an

on the likely effect that Federal land habitat con- objective of the process and was not sought,

ditions would have on the species; whereas, the .- , _. r ..

second judgment was directed toward the actual Outcome scales —The following are the dispopulation, and considered all lands and other

 tmct outcomes

 ^ were used 'f <jhe likelihood

• A voting process to describe the likely species status

that could be supported by habitat conditions.

Expert judgments were registered through a The first set of outcomes are those habitat condiprocess of likelihood voting, using a structured tions found on FS- and BLM-administered lands,

outcome scale. The outcome scale depicted five .

distinct possible outcomes for each species and/or Outcome 1. Habitat is broadly distributed across

its habitat, described in detail in the "Outcome

 the

 Plannm6

 area wlth

 °PP°«unlty

 for

 contmuscale" section below. The individual outcomes rep-

 ous or

 "«"ft

 continuous

 occupation by the

resented points along a gradient ranging from a sP

ecies and llttle or no llmltatlon

 °n population

broadly-distributed condition with a high likeli- interactions.

hood of persistence, to a poorly-distributed condi- Outcome 2. Habitat is broadly distributed across

tion with a high likelihood of extirpation. For tne planning area, but gaps exist within this distrieach judgment, each expert spread 100 likelihood bution. Disjunct patches of habitat are typically

votes across these five outcomes. Any distribution large enough and close enough to other patches to

of the votes was considered legitimate, as long as permit dispersal among patches and to allow

all 100 votes were used. Placing 100 votes on a species to interact as a metapopulation.

single outcome indicated much certainty in that

outcome. Spreading the votes among several out- Outcome 3. Habitat exists primarily as patches,

comes indicated less certainty in any one out-

 some of which are sma11 or

 isolated to the degree

come that species interactions are limited. Local subpopulations in most of the species' range interact

The uncertainty reflected in the likelihood voting as a metapopulation, but some patches are so distechnique stemmed from different sources in the junct

 that subpopulations in those patches are

historic, current, and future judgments. In the essentially isolated from other populations,

historic judgment, sources of uncertainty included

the historic habitat projection and the knowledge Outcome 4. Habitat is typically distributed as

of the relationship of species to that habitat. In

 isolated

 patches, causing strong limitations for

the judgment of current condition, sources of population interactions among patches and limituncertainty included the habitat maps, the current

 ed

 opportunity for dispersal among patches. Some

distribution and condition of species' populations,

 local

 populations may be extirpated and rate of

and the relationship of species to habitats. In recolonization will likely be slow,

future judgments, sources of uncertainty included Outcome 5. Habitat is very scarce throughout

the habitat projection, the relationship of species the area wkh lkde of no possibility of interactions

to habitat, and the unforeseen future events that among load popuiationS) strong potential for extirmight influence land management and the habitat ions> and ,itde likelihood of recolonization.

response to that management.

The second set is the cumulative effects outcome

Experts made their judgments independently after scak The outcome scale for cumulative effects

reviewing the information presented in the panel. judgments is similar to the previously described

Then, having made their initial independent judg- scale> but differs in that k emphasizes actual conments, the experts discussed the basis for their didons of populations. Outcomes are as follows:

decisions. Following this discussion, final judgments were made which sometimes differed from

Terrestrial 543
Outcome 1. Populations are broadly distributed bution, and thus, never would occur in the condiacross the analysis area with little or no limitation tions described in Outcomes 1, 2, or 3. This point

on population interactions. was emphasized to the panelists in order to avoid

_ _ . . i n i- -i i the tendency to consider the "best possible" outOutcome 2. Populations are broadly distributed c(jme for £ach taxon tQ be Outcome {

across the analysis area but gaps exist within this

distribution. Disjunct populations are typically The term "habitat" in the outcome descriptions

large enough and close enough to other popula- was defined as primary habitat capable of supporttions to permit dispersal among populations and ing a self-replacing population. Thus, the assessto allow species to interact as a metapopulation. ment was intended to focus on the pattern of

........ . source habitat, rather than mixing source and secOutcome 3. The species is distributed priman y Qnd habkats

as disjunct populations, some or which are small

or isolated to the degree that species interactions Factors considered in judgments—As noted

are limited. Local subpopulations in most of the earlier, the experts were asked to make a judgment

species' range interact as a metapopulation but based on Federal habitat and a cumulative effects

some populations are so disjunct that they are judgment. They were instructed to base the

essentially isolated from other populations. Federal habitat judgment on species' response to

_. / r, \ • • 11 j- -U j the following factors:

Outcome 4. Populations are typically distributed

as isolated sub-populations with strong limitations 1) amount and distribution of Federal habitat,

in interactions of sub-populations and limited . .. ... .

r j- i i c 2) severe population decline associated with

opportunity tor dispersal among patches, borne ' j

local populations may be extirpated, and rate of a i a , an

vacant habitat recolonization will likely be slow. 3) environmental stochasticity and natural cataOutcome 5. Populations are highly isolated P

throughout the area with little or no possibility of They were instructed to base the cumulative

interactions among local populations, strong effects judgment on likely population response to

potential for extirpations, and little likelihood of all of the following factors:

vacant habitat recolonization.

1) Federal habitat,

Panelists were instructed to consider these outcomes in an absolute way when making their

 2) severe

 population decline associated with

judgments. For example, if habitat for a species on habitat,

Forest Service- or BLM-administered land existed 3) environmental stochasticity and natural cataas two large patches separated by non-Federal strophes

land, and the species' natural history would limit

interchange among those patches, the Federal land 4) non-Federal habitat, and

judgment would describe the resulting condition cx , ,. rr

' X ~ c. ., , .c • j • i L- 5) non-habitat effects,

as Uutcome 2. Similarly, it a species and its habitat existed in a naturally patchy condition, its his- The following definitions of each of these factors

toric condition would be described as Outcome 3 were provided to the experts to help assure consisor 4, depending on the species' natural histories. tent interpretation.

Its current and future condition might decline to

Outcomes 4 and 5, depending on past and pro-

 Fedend habitat: the amount and

 distribution of

posed management. Some outcomes may not be

 source habltat

 available to the species on BLM- or

applicable to all taxa. For example, many amphib-

 Forest

 Service-administered lands, within the EIS

ians occur naturally in a localized or patchy distri-

 area' and at the

 specified time of the judgment.

544 Terrestrial
Non-Federal habitat: the amount and distribu- biotic interactions (such as, competition, predation of source habitat available to the species on tion, and herbivory).

lands other than those administered by the BLM A , . r . . , ^ „,

„ c • i • L nr j L Analysis or the judgments—I here were two

or rorest service, within the bib area, and at the .

 J

 , r \ i \ \ • \

. r , . r , . , primary analyses performed on the data derived

specified time ol the judgment. £ / 7 r , „. , , . . r

 from the expert panels, rirst, we calculated the

Range outside plan area: that part of the species mean likelihood scores for all experts for each of

range that falls completely outside of the EIS area, the outcomes. For example, if there were four

and the associated influences stemming from that experts on a panel, and their likelihood votes for

area. Ranges outside of the EIS area were only Outcome 2, for a particular species were: 30, 30,

considered in judgments for species on the 60, and 40, then the mean likelihood score would

periphery of each EIS area. In these cases, failure be 40. These mean likelihood scores were calculatto consider ranges outside the EIS area would ed for each of the judgments described above, and

have produced misleading judgments about popu- tables displaying these species means are included

lation isolation. in the "Results" sections of this chapter.

Non-habitat effects: all influences on the species To summarize mean likelihoods for each species,

population that are not the direct result of habitat we also calculated a weighted mean outcome. This

management. Examples would include hunting, was calculated by assigning a value to each of the

illegal taking, pesticide effects, air pollution outcome categories (Outcome 1, value = 1;

effects, fishing, and water pollution effects. Outcome 2, value = 2; etc.), multiplying the

mean likelihood of that outcome by its assigned

Severe population decline associated with yalue addi these products for all outcomeS; and

habitat: this factor is included to reflect any bot- then dividing by j 00. The resulting weighted

tleneck events caused by habitat reduction that are mean can be compared across time periods and

likely to occur prior to the specified time of the across alternatives.

judgment, and which would influence the likelihood that the species population would still To display the weighted mean outcomes for

respond (in a predictable way, and at the specified groups of species, we developed simplified displays

time of the judgment), to habitat availability. of the number of species that fell into each of five

classes. These weighted mean outcome classes are

Environmental stochasticity and natural catastro- used Qn many of the figures that accompa the

phes: this factor is included to reflect random ^ in ^ document.6 The fiye dasses are.

environmental variation that would influence the

likelihoods of species attaining the specified out- Outcome 1 includes weighted means from 1.00

comes. Such random variation could result from

 to

 < 1-50

variations in climate and random effects of distur- Outcome 2 includes weighted means from 1.50

bance (such as, fire, insect activity, or wind). to < 2 50

The experts' judgment involved the way that a Outcome 3 includes weighted means from 2.50

species would respond to these factors based on its to < 3.50

life history characteristics. Life history characteris- .

tics include demographic characteristics, responses Outcome 4 includes weighted means from 3.50

to varying qualities of habitat for specific life

 to <

functions, types and ranges of seasonal and per- Outcome 5 includes weighted means from 4.50

manent movements, genetic characteristics, and to 5.00.

''The number of species that fell into each of these classes was determined from unrounded data. Data was rounded to the nearest

tenth in the accompanying tables, and so can not be used to exactly replicate the outcome class information shown in the figures.

Terrestrial 545
We also developed figures showing numbers of results of the expert panels. However, there were a

species for which outcomes improved, stayed the number of species (25) for which expert panel

same, or declined under each of the alternatives, judgments proved to be inconsistent with projectcompared to the current outcomes. For these fig- ed habitat trends, or with the standards and

ures, species were only tallied as improving or guidelines of the alternatives. Such findings may

declining if their weighted mean outcome have resulted from an unclear understanding of

changed by a value of at least 0.5, a value general- the management proposals, incomplete informaly corresponding to one standard deviation of the tion on the effects of proposed management, or

mean outcome. incomplete understanding of the species status

. . 11-1 1 within on e o r both EI S areas. I n these situations, We assessed uncertainty around the weighted w£ ided finaj ^^ different from ^

mean outcome scores by calculating the standard h The ess of idi these final results

deviation (S.D.) of the distribution of likelihood involved a let£ review of the data pertinent

points among the outcome classes for each species w ^ alternatives> a review of the panel notes and

and each alternative: scores> a reyiew of background literature on the

S.D. = [{Ifjxj2 - [(HiXj)Vn]}/(n - 1)] "2 species, consultation within the team, and, in

some cases, consultation with additional species

where, fj = likelihood in Outcome i, experts. These occurrences are footnoted in the

i = 1, 2, 5, 4, or 5; results, discussed in the results for each species

Xj = numerical outcome i ; group, and displayed later in this chapter. Further

n = 100 (likelihood points). documentation of the process of providing final .

Uncertainty of the results includes two compo-

 results is on file with the

 JCBEMP.

nents, variation of likelihood distributions among The outcomes are projections of conditions for

panelists and spread of likelihood points among species and habitats at the specified points in time

outcomes by each panelist. Uncertainty would be (historic, current, and 100 years in the future)

low if panelists provided similar ratings, and if under each alternative. In some cases, panelists

likelihoods were assigned to one outcome. We chose to extend the period of the assessment

considered one standard deviation as a good mea- beyond 100 years in order to fully account for the

sure of uncertainty in outcome scores. Assuming rate at wnicn ecological processes would bring

an approximately normal distribution of mean about changes in the landscape. Judgments were

outcome scores, a range defined by mean outcome not made about trends in habitat or species' popuplus or minus one standard deviation would lations. Information about trends can be inferred

include about 68 percent of the expected distribu- through review of the judgments. The change

tion of scores. It should be recognized that the from historic to current, and from current to

distribution of outcomes is on five discrete values, foture> un(jer each alternative was determined by

and therefore, is not continuous, and that stan- comparing the likelihoods or means of outcomes

dard deviations will be smaller when outcome at eacn of tnose points in time.

likelihoods are distributed at the extremes of the

distribution (that is, Outcomes i or 5) Interpretation, Limitations, and

We considered data gathered from the panels as Assumptions of the Analysis

input for the final results to be displayed in this T . r , „. . .

chapter. When analyses had been completed, we Interpretation of results—This analysis does

reviewed them to insure that they reflected an

 no\ Provide a slmPle

 determination of what does

adequate understanding of the alternatives and of

 and d°es not cons

«

tute a TM*le population. We

the landscape being analyzed. Most of the final

 conslder th

,

ls to

 ^a stlen&

h ofthe

 P[oces'

 rather

judgments reported here are identical to the

 than a weakness

-

 Prevlous

 experience has shown

54S Terrestrial
that there are not simple thresholds for viability, or minus 0.5 weighted mean outcome units are

particularly when assessments are done on a broad most meaningful in comparisons of outcomes

array of taxa. Rather than providing a simple among single-species scenarios. Changes less than

determination, this analysis is intended to describe 0.5 are well within expected variation given the

likely future conditions for species and habitats uncertainty in the outcome scores. For comparand to provide for comparison of those conditions isons of mean outcomes computed from sets of

to current and historic conditions. species (such as amphibians or forest birds) much

T , r . , . ... . . smaller differences may be meaningful and warLack or a simple determination, however, adds -\

. . I . i /- • . I i rant consideration,

complexity to the job of interpreting the results

and using them in a decision-making framework. Limitations of the analysis—A variety of cauWe recommend that interpretation of the results tions must be applied to the interpretation of this

emphasizes a comparison of the projected future analysis. These cautions fall into four areas: (1)

conditions under the alternatives to the historic broad geographic and time scale of the analysis,

and current conditions. Projected future condi- (2) resolution of the data and planning guidance,

tions that produce outcomes similar to historic (3) limitations on ability to infer population

conditions should generally be considered as results from habitat analysis, and (4) gaps in

favorable. Similarly, projected future conditions knowledge. These are briefly discussed below,

that result in improvements from current condi- , . .

tions should be considered favorable, especially Ife^JF °f thlS TM^TM ^f *"

 entue

.

where current conditions are below historic condi- ICBEMP assessment area. Habitat projections

tions. Projected future conditions that result in

 used

 .

m

 the analysis represent the summarized

declines from current conditions may be viewed as

 C°ndl"°ns f°U

"

d Wlthm SPeC1CS ranges m

.^

 of

.

unfavorable, particularly if they indicate a signifi-

 the

 ^ areas-

 For so

j

me sPecles>.« 1S

 possible and

cant increase in the likelihood that local popula-

 even llkf £ that

 conditions within some smaller

tions will be isolated. For example, a change in areas will be much better than the composite and

weighted mean outcome from 3 to 4 should be 'n others they TMU be much TMTM'

 T^ls could

considered a significant decrease. Any projected have negative effects on species distribution that

change that would result in a strong likelihood of could not be predicted from the data reviewed

species extirpation from a large portion of its ^ere. Similarly, in making future projections we

range should be viewed as a serious concern. A looked only at vegetation conditions at 10 50,

change to a weighted mean outcome of 5 would

 and 10°7ears' and dld not

 [eview intermediate

indicate such a change. Changes in outcomes on

 nme

 Per!

O(k Ir ls

 P°<*'l>le that conditions during

Federal lands may weigh most heavily in consider- intermediate times could be much worse, thus

ation of the preliminary draft EIS alternatives. influencing the pattern of persistence of populaHowever, changes in cumulative effects should

 tlons' Thls 1S most hkel

y

 to haPPen

 f ^«natives

also be considered, particularly where there are TMhere agg>TM actlons are Proposed over the

opportunities for Federal lands to compensate for

 shorj.term' to begm returnlng S7stems to hlstorlc

some level of the cumulative effect. conditions.

Uncertainty—Interpretation of results through- The sec°

nd

 «ution relates to the resolution of

out this report must include a consideration of data and the resolution of planning guidance,

uncertainty. One measure of this uncertainty is ?*blTM data reTMed for *is assessment were

indexed by the standard deviation of the frequen-

 br°ad m sc°Pe

 ^nd represented only the macrocy distribution of likelihoods among the outcome

 babltats w'th whl

 J ea^

h sPfcies

r

ls assoc/ated

-

classes for each species. Based on analyses present-

 Habltats that are dlfnbuted at

u

finer SC^eS (such

ed in detail in the "Summary" section of this as, riparian habitats) or are within stand microchapter, we believe that variations of about plus

 habltat features (such as' snags and logs) were not

Terrestrial S47
well represented by these data. As a consequence, many facets of the preliminary draft EIS alternaassessment was difficult for species for which such tives were either not clear, or not explicit at the

habitats and features are important. Resolution of time that this analysis was conducted. In some

the planning guidance (that is, standards and situations, the Science Integration Team (SIT)

guidelines, and prescriptions) given under each of had to make reasonable assumptions about the

the alternatives also limited the reliability of the intent of the proposals. The following are the

analysis. In many areas, the planning guidance did major assumptions used for the terrestrial species

not contain detailed prescriptions for manage- analysis:

ment actions, or detailed information on how , \ . • • . iiii r \ r- ,« r

management actions and habitats would be dis-

 !)

 Activities scheduled for the first 0 years of

tributed geographically across the landscape. As a Plan implementation would result m trends

consequence, much of this analysis had to be toward the desired future condition. This is

based on the intent of the alternatives, rather than especially important for roads under alternaon specific provisions. If one of these alternatives

 tlves

 .

that cal1 fo*bmh ^crated management

is implemented, additional analyses and guidance

 actlvlt

y

 and a reductlon ln road dens"7-

will be needed to design management actions that 2) Snag standards (both default and locally develare consistent with the intent of the alternative Oped) will address snag number, diameter,

and that would achieve the outcomes projected height, decay class, species, distribution and

here. replacement through time. Standards will be

The third caution relates to our ability to infer patterned after historic conditions for vegetapopulation consequences from habitat assess-

 tlon

 Communities, but will include consideraments. This caution is particularly strong for "on of animal sP

ecles

,

 nefds and

 ^urrent con'

species whose populations are small and/or poorly ditions (for example, landscapes that are curdistributed across the landscape. Conclusions on

 rentl

y

 deficient m snags

'

 or

. ^ currently contrends of habitats, particularly when extended to tam an Sundance of snags). Standards will

inferring potential effects on species, must be

 dearl

y

 s,Peclfy h°7 Sna8s are to be r[eated

treated as tentative working hypotheses. The lack

 under

 *? Wes of prescriptions (such as, harof specific data on population size, structure, and

 vest' thinnmg' salvage

' prescribed fire, etc.).

functional and numerical responses, requires that 3) Down wood standards will address number

much inference has to be made from changes in and size (diameter and length) of pieces,

habitat abundance and gross distribution patterns. species, distribution, and replacement through

Actual population response might differ. time. Standards will be patterned after historic

The final caution relates to gaps in knowledge. conditions for vegetative communities, but will

Many of the species assessed here are poorly stud-

 mc!ude

 consideration of animal species needs

ied and inadequately understood. Their distribu-

 and Cufnt

 conditions (for example landtion, habitat associations, biotic interactions, and

 scaPes that are

 currently deficient m ogs or

demographic statuses and characteristics are not ^ «TTM .?,

 C°ntam abundant lo&>-

well known. Likewise, successional dynamics and Standards will clearly specify how logs are to

system interactions are incompletely understood

 be

 «eated under all types of prescriptions

for many vegetation types, and natural, large-scale j^ *>

 harvest' thinning' salvage

' prescribed

disturbances cannot be accurately predicted. ' '''

Projection reliability is reduced by these gaps in 4) Consideration of plant and animal species will

knowledge. be a key component of the ecosystem analysis

Assumptions used in analysis—As explained PIOCTM used to TMpl«neM the selected alternain the preceding "Limitations of analysis" section,

 tive' Habltat needs of sPecles wl11 be used to

S48 Terrestrial
help shape specific prescriptions and the sched- under any of the preliminary draft EIS alternauling and location of activities. Such consider- tives. This focus was necessary due to time conations will be part of all prescriptions, includ- straints. The criteria used to select species for

ing those designed to accomplish restoration assessment were:

objectives. A key consideration of ecosystem \ Ti i • r • i

analysis will be projected changes in the avail-

 1} Habltat for

 the species has declined histonability of specific habitats through time. ^ °r

 "»6^ decline in the future under

Actions that could reduce currently scarce or

 an^ of the alternatlves

-

poorly distributed habitats will be carefully or

analyzed to insure that they will still allow

species objectives to be met.

 2) The

 species is associated with a specific habitat feature (such as, snags) that has declined

5) Appropriate vegetation patterning should be a in tne past or might decline under any of

key objective of restoration activities. Historic tne management alternatives.

patterns of vegetative fragmentation and areas

in juxtaposition will be used to establish stand

 or

and landscape objectives for vegetative restora- 3) The ies> population has undergone a signon. Such considerations are particularly nificam dedine based ekher Qn jata Qf Qn

importan

• ill/

t wher

* i

e histori

 • ft

c fores

> f

t condition

c f CALJC1

s TM«*.n

L

-

 OL/lIlUJil

 ^,TM;TMt

included a fine-scale mix of different forest

serai stages and tree densities, including small and

° ' 4) The species is sufficiently widespread within

6) Restoration activities will be directed at all veg- the study area that it can be legitimately

etation types, with priorities based on ecosys- assessed at the scale of a regional plan.

tern analysis. Specific restoration activities <- • IT r i r i 1,1.1 1 . bpecies were assessed ir any or the hrst three cnteshould include aspen regeneration, cotton- .

r

 • ^ • • / T-I • r

, j -ri • j i • na were true and Criterion 4 was true. Ihespecirwood and willow regeneration and planting, . , , .... .

 r

j • r ii L L • i_

 lc

 process used to select species within maior taxoand regeneration or all shrub species that were

 r

 . . ,. f. , ' . L. . i, . i • i ii i • • nomic groups is discussed in subsequent sections,

historically associated with upland and riparian T i j- • i -c • • 11

• i • i j- • • jij In these discussions, a clarification is needed on

shrub types, including umper woodlands. , r , « ,. , „ , r

 °'

 r the status or species termed as candidates under

7) Restoration activities that are well studied and the Endangered Species Act of 1973. Recent

well understood will be pursued as aggressively changes (Federal Register, February 28, 1996)

under Alternative 6 as they are under have been made to the list of plant and animal

Alternative 4. species that are regarded as candidates (U.S. Government 1996). These changes dropped the classi8) Plant conservation strategies that have been fictions of Category 1 (Cl), Category 2 (C2),

approved will be applied in any alternative. and Category 3 (C3) candidates in favor of simply

9) Standards will be applied in all alternatives to

 listing sPedes as

 candidates for listing. Most of

protect caves, cliffs, mines, and other bat roost

 the

 species that were classified as Category 2 or 3

sites and hibernacula. candidates, and 303 taxa that were Category 1

candidates are no longer included in the list of

Selection of Species for Analysis candidate species. A number of species discussed

* in this assessment are termed Category 2 because

The assessments described in this chapter were that was their status when our database was

made for species for which some regional conser- assembled. Of those species only two, mountain

vation concern existed or might exist in the future plovers and spotted frogs, were designated as canTerrestrial 549
didates in the Federal Register notice. All others and human-caused threats to populations, and

were dropped from the list of candidates. These ecological characteristics (appendix 4-B). Each of

changes are mentioned here only to clarify legal these taxa was also categorized into one of five

status. Change in status had no influence on our geographic distribution categories based on the

assessment process. nature of its distribution pattern within the Basin;

-T , , i ii. ,T . , these are defined as follows:

Non-vascular plants and allies—No regional

viability analyses were done for non-vascular Local endemic (80 taxa): populations are restrictplants or allies (bryophytes, fungi, or lichens) ed to a very small geographic area (such as, a

under the preliminary draft EIS alternatives, and single mountain range, a localized set of bedrock

it is recommended that taxa in these species outcrops, etc.). These taxa are often also confined

groups be considered for further analyses at finer to highly specialized habitats,

geographic scales. The regional scale of the pre- , . .

liminary draft EIS alternatives, combined with a Rfglonal enden"

c (66

 *?>: populations inhabit

lack of detailed knowledge on the distribution of

 a larfr

 geographic area than do local endemics

numerous non-vascular plants and allies, makes ^ as> southeast Washington and adjacent

viability analysis problematic. Furthermore, the

 Idaho for c

,

ertam

 ^alo"

se endemic

,

s

)- These

general nature of the alternatives and the stan- I3TM m^^so be closely associated with certain

dards and guidelines make it inappropriate to

 habltats' but m^ of them are not ecologlca%

judge the fine-scale, site-specific effects of the speci ize .

alternatives on the taxa in these species groups. Scattered distribution (14 taxa): populations are

There are no non-vascular plants or allies in the

 sPa

^ distributed over a wide geographic area '

assessment area that are federally listed as endan-

 w'thin

 *e Basm' ^"ranges often extend outgered or threatened. Similarly, no non-vascular

 Slde the Ba^n

;

 bu5 nowhere are the

y common deplants or allies in the assessment area are currently

 ments on the landscaPe

-

designated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Disjunct (3 taxa): populations within the Basin

(USFWS) as candidates for federal listing, are substantially separated geographically from the

although one lichen species, Texosporium sancti- remainder of the taxon's range.

jacobi, was formerly designated as a Category 2

candidate. This lichen is also the only non-vascu- Peripheral (1 taxon): populations within the

lar plant in the Basin that is designated as sensi-

 Basin

 lie on the margin of the taxon's range, but

tive by the FS and the BLM. Contract reports

 are

 geographically contiguous with that range,

specific to bryophytes (Christy and Harpel 1995), The majority of theSe 164 vascular plant taxa are

fungi (Castellano 1994, Fogel 1994, Miller 1994, ekher locaUy endemic in thdr distribution pat.

Miller and Miller 1994, Weber 1994) and lichens tem> Qr haye broader distributions that are associ-

(Eversman 1994, Hammer 1995, Kaltenecker and ated whh h- w speciaiized habitats. Outcomes

Wicklow-Howard 1994, McCune 1994, for such taxa CQuld no( be appropriately an^d

Rosentreter 1995, Ryan 1994, Wicklow-Howard at the broad scale of our evaiuatiori) owing to the

1994, Wicklow-Howard and Kaltenecker 1994) genend namre of the ^rnM[ves and associated

summarize the status of these species groups, and prescriptions. The viability and conservation of

potentially rare taxa are discussed in each. these narrowly distributed or ecologically restrictVascular plants—During the compilation of

 ed taxa are Dest

 addressed at the local or subinformation on vascular plants for the ICBEMP regional level, that is, on the pertinent National

in 1994 and 1995, 164 plant taxa of rangewide Forest(s) or BLM unit(s), or by Ecological

conservation concern were evaluated with respect Reporting Units (ERU). Appropriate approaches

to their vegetation cover type associations, natural

 in these

 cases include the development of species

550 Terrestrial
conservation strategies or the incorporation of Lesquerella carinata var. carinata has no occurspecific standards and guidelines into the manage- rences on BLM- or FS-administered lands in the

ment plans for those planning areas. Basin assessment area.

Thirty-seven of the rare vascular plant taxa were Lesquerella pulchella has no occurrences within the

selected for possible assessment. Some of these Basin.

species have a broad geographic distribution pat- . /.,„. . • r • ,

L D • / u • r j j- Lupinus biddlei is no longer or rangewide consertern in the Basin (such as, species or scattered dis- < & &

tribution that are not habitat specialists). Other

 vatlon concern

-

species were included regardless of their distribu- Mimulus patulus has specialized habitat requiretion pattern because they occur in two or more of ments; species is not appropriately analyzed at the

the broad community groups that were ultimately assessment scale,

used to combine the original vegetation cover types

(such as, local or regional endemics that are not Oryzopsis contmcta is no longer of rangewide conhighly specialized with respect to habitat require- servation concern.

ments). These taxa could appropriately be Thus> 2g lam taxa of rangewide conservation

addressed across larger landscape areas, and with CQncem that could appropriateiv be analyzed at

respect to the general alternatives proposed in the the bfoad scale of the assessment were ultimately

preliminary draft EISs. Exceptions to this approach sdected for outcome ^ysis. The remaining 127

included the assessment of three federally listed taxa> including numerous more highly imperiled

species. They were evaluated even though their endemic or ecologically specialized plants, could

geographic distribution pattern or highly special- not be meaningmnv analyzed at this broad scale,

ized ecological relationships would have otherwise These indude many globally rare plant taxa desig.

precluded rating them at the broad scale. These nated ^ sensitive by either the Forest Service or

federally listed taxa included: Howellia aquatilis the BLM Appendix 4.3 lists & 164 plant taxa

(threatened), an ecologically highly specialized ^ indicates those that were analv^d in this evalspecies of scattered distribution; Mirabtlts macfar- uation> those that were recornmended for analysis

lanei (threatened), a local endemic; and Stephan- at finer scale> and those that were dropped from

omena malheurensts (endangered), a local endemic. consideration because they are not of conservation

During the assessment process, 9 of the 37 taxa concern.

were dropped from further consideration for the Detailed information on all taxa in five large vasreasons discussed below: cular plam genefa in the Basin is avaiiable in sepaAntennaria arcuate has a scattered distribution,

 rate

 contract reports. These genera include Allium

but only one occurrence in the Basin; species is (McNeal 1995), Botrychium (Zika 1995), Carex

not appropriately analyzed at the regional scale. (Brainerd and others 1995), Mimulus (Memke

1995a) and Penstemon (Meinke 1995b). These

Aster mollis has a scattered distribution, but only reports provide detailed data on the biogeography,

one occurrence in the Basin; species is not appro- ecological relationships and status of both rare

priately analyzed at the regional scale. and common taxa in these genera.

Aster jessicae has no occurrences on BLM- or FS- The taxonomic status of one of the federally

administered lands. listed plant taxa, Stephanomeria malheurewis,

j, / , • • r j ii i- j j has recently been changed in the literature. It is

Astragalus appkeatei is federally listed as endan-

 7

 . . ° c o i f o / -i j i • most currently treated as a synonym or a more

gered, and is probably the most imperiled plant in . ; . '. i . ,~

%. i • u DT \A common, wide-ranging species, o. exivua (Cron- Oregon, but, it has no occurrences on BLM-or . , „»/, ~, . ° ° v

 . ,

 6

 ,

FS H ' ' rl 1 A quist 1994). 1 his taxonomic change may nave a

Terrestrial 551
bearing on the federal listing of the former taxon, this evaluation. The selection process used inforbut until the USFWS formally recognizes this mation gathered in the SER database (species

change, the species will be addressed in the range, status, and habitat relationships), and the

ICBEMP assessment as a federally listed taxon. results of a preliminary evaluation of habitat and

, , ^T ...... . . . population changes for all species both historically

Invertebrates-No regional viability analysis ^J under ^ &

elimi

 ^^^ done in

was done for invertebrate species under the alter- Qctober and November 1995 8

natives tor the Basin assessment, and it is recommended that invertebrates be considered for We initially placed species in four groups: group 1

analysis at finer scales. The regional scale of the included species for which analysis should be conEIS alternatives combined with a basic lack of ducted at finer scale; group 2 included species

knowledge of invertebrate species' distributions whose outcomes appear secure and for which

and habitat use makes viability analysis problem- analysis was not deemed necessary; group 3

atic. Moreover, the general nature of the alterna- included species for which analysis was clearly

tives and the standards and guidelines would appropriate; and, group 4 included species which

make it inappropriate to judge the fine-scale, did not fall in any of the other three categories,

site-specific effects of the alternatives on We then examined species in the fourth group

invertebrates. individually. Appendix 4-C displays the judg-

_. ... . . r . ments made about analysis of each of the verte1 here are no terrestrial invertebrates that are red- i • • j- u cct> j u

.... . i . i brate species contained in the btR database.

erally listed as endangered or threatened in the

assessment area. No terrestrial invertebrates are The first group consisted of species that are locally

listed as Federal Cl Candidate species, although endemic within the Basin and for which analysis

19 terrestrial species are listed as Federal C2 at finer scales was considered most appropriate.

Candidate species (table 4.1). The Forest Service Locally endemic populations restricted to a very

does not list any terrestrial invertebrates in their small area (for example, one portion of a mounregional sensitive species lists. BLM regional tain range, or canyon) may also be restricted to

offices list six sensitive invertebrate species (table very specialized habitats and have distributions

4.1). Experts have identified additional unlisted entirely within the Basin evaluation area,

species as rare or endemic in the assessment area. . .

These species are listed and discussed in the

 Th<: second

 grouP' ^68 for whlch f10,

6

^" ,

Terrestrial Ecology chapter of the Assessment of TMty* wf considered necessary, included widely

Ecosystem Components (Marcot and others, in distributed species that are common or abundant,

press), and in ICBEMP detailed contract reports.7 h,

ave h*d no Kfor

,

ded P°pul*ipn or habitat declines during the historical period, and are not

Vertebrates—The Species-Environment expected to experience habitat declines under the

Relations (SER) database developed for the Basin preliminary draft EIS alternatives (preliminary

analysis lists 548 vertebrate species that occur analysis of alternatives9)- These widespread and

within the assessment area during some part of abundant species are typically habitat generalists

their life history. We followed a step-wise process and are considered unlikely to be affected by federal

to determine which of these should be analyzed in land management alternatives on a regional scale.

'Contract reports, on file with: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land

Management, Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project, 112 E. Poplar, Walla Walla, WA. 99362.

"On file with: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management,

Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project, 112 E. Poplar, Walla Walla, WA. 99362.

'Preliminary Draft EIS alternatives, on file with: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Interior,

Bureau of Land Management, Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project, 112 E. Poplar, Walla Walla, WA. 99362.

062 Terrestrial
Table 4.1. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Federal Category 2 Candidate and BLM sensitive invertebrate

species.

Class/Order Genus & Species USFWS C2 BLM Sensitive

Arachnida, Pseudoscorpionida

Gastropoda Apochtonius malheuri C'

Acroloxus coloradensis C

Cryptomastix magnidentata C

Discus marmorensis C

Megomphix lutarius C

Monadenia fells minor C C

Oreohelix idahoensis idahoensis C

Oreohelix jugalis C

Oreohelix nevadensis C

Oreohelix strigosa delicata C

Oreohelix strigosa honiogyra C

Oreohelix vortex C

Oreohelix waltori C

Insecta, Coleoptera Agonum belleri C

Cicindela arenicola C

Glacicavicola bathyscoides C

Nebria gebleri fragariae C

Nebria vandykei wyeast C

Insecta, Lepidoptera Charidryas acastus dorothyea C

Euphilotes rita mattonii C

Limenitis archippus lahontani C

Polites sabuleti sinemaculata C

Po/rfes mardon C

Insecta, Orthopera Acrolophitus pulchellus C

'C = currently listed

In addition, no analysis was considered necessary Species that did not fall in any of the first three

for bird species that are irregular visitors within the groups were examined individually to determine if

Basin and do not depend on habitats within the there were sufficient concerns about their outevaluation area for key life functions. Federal habi- comes in the Basin to warrant detailed analysis,

tat management within the Basin was considered to Information used in this assessment included pubhave little effect on viability of these species. lished reports, the SER database, the initial evalu-

„. . . . r ... . . ation of alternatives conducted in 1995, and any

1 he third group, species tor which analysis was • • j i • j c •

• i i i i i i r i 11 i- i existing data on population trends. Species were considered mandatory, included federally listed or n i j r i • -c u i

. . . . .i i 1 1 generally selected fo r analysis i r they were known

candidate species, or species that have been the \ , • j • T LU-

,. r/ .'

 F

. .. . .. . or expected to have experienced significant habitat

subject or lawsuits. Species listed as sensitive by i • j r • L

. ' _

 ILT i i . i or population declines in the past, or were associthe rorest Service or BLM were also designated j-uuu - jji - j

r

 i • i i i . i i r r-

 ateci with habitats expected to decline under one

lor analysis unless deemed most suitable lor line- i • c • n

. '. . .. . . .. . cr .. or more alternatives. Species were generally not

scale analysis or considered to be little allected by \ ic \ • -c L u

c A 1 k K' selected lor analysis il they were common, abun-

° ' dant, or associated with habitats considered to be

secure. Some species whose ranges are predominantly outside the Columbia River Basin were

Terrestrial 553
not further analyzed because actions within the EffGCtS Of OfltiOHS Oil

Basin were considered of little consequence to TdTGStricll SD6CIOS

their viability. These species were generally placed

in the category of those requiring finer-scale -*r • p«

assessments.10 VaSCUlOT 1 lantS

No special consideration was given to socially or Introduction-The 28 vascular plants that were

economically important species (such as, big game

 selected

 x

fo

,

r

 analysis include 19 regionally endemic

mammals and game birds), or to tribal-emphasis

 sPe

"

es' 4 loc^Y endemic species, and 5 species

species that were not selected for the previously

 Wlth scatterf distributions Twenty-five of these

mentioned ecological reasons. In many cases, such

 taxa were

 selected because of rangewide conservaspecies are widespread and relatively common or

 tt°n

 concerns, and because they could be reasonabundant, and there is little concern for their via-

 abl

y ^1^ °" a broad scale with respect to the

bility within the Basin. Issues of harvestability ^neral nature of the alternatives, as discussed in

were outside the scope of our outcome analysis

 the method* sectlon

 immediately below. The

and would require a different evaluation process. remaining three taxa were selected because they

are federally listed.

Table 4.2 shows the number of vertebrate species r

in each class that were deemed appropriate for

 F°ur

 °/the reF

onal

 endemics (Astragalus mulforregional or fine-scale analysis and for no further ^f • A oniaformis, A. solitanus, A. yoder-williamanalysis. There were 173 vertebrate species select- "f> **« ^elected beca"f ^ occm

,

m uPland

ed for analysis in this evaluation. Species not shrub habitats, especially Artemisia (sagebrush)

selected for viability analysis numbered 335- Forty shrublands, and are known either to have suffered

species were recommended for analysis in finer- population declines or are expected to decline

scale planning processes.

 under soTMof

, *e draft Alternatives Four regional

endemics (Calocbortus mtiaus, Haplopappus liatnformis, Polemonium pectinatum, Silene spaldingii)

are associated with the Palouse grasslands, and are

also known to have suffered severe population

losses throughout all or a significant portion of

their historic range as these grasslands were largely

Table 4.2. Tally of vertebrate species showing those selected for detailed analysis; those for which analysis

at finer scale is most appropriate; and, those for which detailed analysis was not considered necessary.

Analysis

Vertebrate Class EIS Fine No Analysis Grand Total

Amphibians 7 3 17 27

Birds 133 9 220 362

Mammals 20 25 87 132

Reptiles 13 3 11 27

Grand Total 173 40 335 548

'"Narratives describing the reasons for selection or rejection of species for analysis (ones not initially categorized by the rule sets)

are on file with: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau or Land Management,

Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project, 112 E. Poplar, Walla Walla, WA. 99362.

554 Terrestrial
converted for agricultural use. The remaining 11 ed as questions arose regarding land ownership, or

regional endemics (Astragalus paysonii, Calochortus the ecological relationships of these taxa.

longebarbatus var. lonvebarbatus, Castilleja chloroti- . . . . . . . . /--•// • /- • j i- i a •• TT L i- Methods used lor vascular plant analysis were

ca, Lollomia mazama, Gnnaelia howellii, tiackelia . . .. . „

 r

_ . . r' .

• •• T . i , r>. ,,• i those described above in Methods ror Assessing

cronqutstit, Lomatium suksdorni, Mimulus py?- „. . . „ . . ,. ., A,- i i- • i • ° hllects on lerrestnal Species. Population distnbmaeus, Mimulus washingtonemis var. wasmnvtonen- . . •, , , r > i i i

. r> ^ / • n ^ / / • -\ ution data, available rrom the state-level network

sis, Fenstemon naucinus, LJenstemon Lemmensis) were ,.. ,,, . „ , ^ 111 1 j • i o r Natural Heritage Programs an d Conservation

selected because they are associated with common

 & p .... .

j i j L L -i Data Centers, were used to create distribution

vegetation types and could thus be appropriately „ ... . . .

analyzed with respect to the general nature of the

 ma.Ps

'.

 SPa

"

al

 ^«depicting management prei • j • j • • scriptions lor each bib alternative were supenmalternatives and associated prescriptions.

 r

. . .... .

 r

 r

posed over the occurrence distribution maps ol

Two of the local endemics, (Mirabilis macfarlanei, the plant taxa. For each species, tallies of the

Stephanomeria malheurensis) which otherwise number of occurrences (by prescription and alterwould not have been analyzed because of their native) were then made in order to assess likely

limited geographic ranges, were selected because outcomes for each species under each alternative,

they are federally listed. The other two local In addition, vegetation community group changes

endemics (Calochortus longebarbatus var. peckii, (as predicted for the historical and current condiTrifolium thompsonit) were selected, despite their tions, and for 100-year outcomes for each of the

restricted geographic ranges, because they occur in seven EIS alternatives) were taken into consideracommon community types that could potentially tion in assessing species outcomes.

be affected by implementation of one or more of _ ...... . ...... .

LI - Because o l their intrinsic geographic distributions,

some of the five habitat and population outcomes

One of the taxa (Howellia aquatilis) with a scat- used for this evaluation are not applicable to the

tered distribution, would normally not have been rare vascular plants. Outcome 3 was found to be

analyzed because it is only found in a highly the most favorable outcome for most of the rare

specialized habitat; however, it was selected vascular plants. This was based on their evolutionbecause it is federally listed. The other four scat- ary history and intrinsically patchy or limited distered taxa (Botrychium ascendens, B. crenulatum, tribution patterns (both ecologically and spatially)

B. paradoxum, Cypripedium fasciculatum) were on the landscape. Outcome 1 was never found to

selected because of their rangewide rarity, and

 aPply to

 these rare vascular plant taxa, and

because they occurred in common community Outcome 2 was thought to apply only for one

types that could potentially be affected by species (Cypripedium fasciculatum) where the assoimplementation of one or more of the general ciated community types and broad distribution

alternatives. pattern of the populations suggested that a larger,

, , r contiguous set of habitats and populations could

Methods—The assessment panel consisted of Qccur Qn ^ knd

three members or the Science Integration learn

(appendix 4-A). Adequate information on the sta- In assigning outcomes to plant species on both

tus and viability of the 28 taxa being assessed had Federal lands (FS and BLM) and for all ownerbeen compiled during the extensive expert panels ships (cumulative effects), habitat and population

held in 1994 and 1995. This information was trends were considered only within the ranges of

usually sufficient to assign ratings without having these rare plant taxa (as opposed to including suitto convene an additional, larger panel. The earlier able but unoccupied habitat that might occur outpanels involved numerous botanists from all phys- side these ranges, across a broader portion of the

iographic provinces in the Basin. During this eval- EIS areas). This is again related to the intrinsically

uation, many of these experts were again consult- restricted geographic ranges of most of these taxa.

Terrestrial 565
Their evolutionary history and past climatic and

geological influences have played a larger role in

determining their distributions than has the presence of suitable habitat.

In assigning outcomes for certain species, it was

assumed that conservation agreements that have

been adopted by the Federal agencies would be

implemented under all alternatives. These strategies would apply to populations and habitat on

Federal lands only. Conservation agreements have

been adopted for seven of the plant species analyzed here: Astragalus mulfordiae, Calochortus

longebarbatus var. longeba.rba.tus, Castilleja, chlorotica, Howellia aquatilis, Mimulus pygmaeus,

Penstemon glaucinus, and Stephanomeria malheurensis. In addition, it was assumed that appropriate National Environmental Protection Act

(NEPA) analysis and mitigation would continue,

for all species of conservation concern, during

project analysis and implementation under all of

the alternatives.

Results—Twenty-two of the vascular plant taxa

analyzed occur on Forest Service- or BLMadministered lands in the EEIS area, and 15 of

them occur on Federal lands in the UCRB EIS

area. The number of these taxa in each outcome

class, for historic and current conditions, and for

each alternative after 100 years, is summarized for

each EIS area in figure 4.1. Most taxa are in

Outcome classes 3 and 4 for historic and current

conditions, as well as for the expected outcomes

for all alternatives.

Mean outcomes for each of the species are shown

in table 4.3. The weighted mean outcomes, for

both Federal lands and for the cumulative effects

analysis, are summarized in table 4.4 and figure

4.2. The general trend for the 28 vascular plants

Figure 4.1 Vascular Plants

Figure 4.1. Frequency distribution of mean habitat outcome scores for 22 taxa of vascular plants in the EEIS planning area, and

14 taxa in the UCRB planning area, on Federal lands for historic, current, and future conditions under seven preliminary draft

EIS alternatives. See "Methods for Assessing Species and Habitat Outcomes" for full definition of each outcome score and for

ranges of weighted mean outcome values used to define each outcome score.

Terrestrial
Figure 4.2 Vascular Plants

EEIS UCRB

1 I | =| I 1 I . =j

Federal Cumulative Federal Cumulative

» e » Q

2 2

«

i

O 3 Q 3

4 4

5 I i i i i i i i i i 5 I i i i i i i i i i

H C A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 H C A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7

Alternative Alternative

Figure 4.2. Mean outcome scores averaged over 28 vascular plant taxa in the EEIS and UCRB planning areas for historic, current,

and future conditions under seven preliminary draft EIS alternatives. Solid lines indicate scores for habitat conditions on Federal

lands only; dashed lines indicate projected populations from cumulative effects analysis. These lines are for illustrative purposes

only; they do not imply trends between alternatives.

that were analyzed, on both Federal land and all Discussion—The declines from historic to curownerships, has been a decline in habitat and rent conditions for the 28 rare vascular plant taxa

population integrity from the historical condition analyzed have generally resulted from habitat conto the present. With respect to future conditions version or shifts in habitat suitability. Altered

under all alternatives, however, the habitat and habitats are the result of successional changes,

population integrity of these taxa is predicted to which can be attributed to fire suppression and

remain relatively unchanged at these reduced lev- other land management activities (such as, grazels, but with some modest improvement predicted ing, timber harvest). Projected change under the

under Alternatives 2, 4, and 6. alternatives is expected to be smaller for plants

_. . . . , r than for animals, owing to the intrinsically patchy

1 he weighted mean outcomes are presented tor ,. .L . , , L • c .,..,! , • r / -, i i distributions and slower, more stochastic nature or

seven individual plant taxa i n figures 4. 3 through , . i L • -ir r T T

,__ , •/> r i -il l dispersal that is typical o r plants. Implementation

4.9. 1 he specinc outcomes tor these are included c . L L

, ,

r

 ,. r 11-1 1 o r th e ecosystem restoration approaches empnabecause they exemplify general ecological and • j • A i • / is- j

.' F .

!

 °r , ,° , sized in Alternatives 4 and 6 is expected to proresponse characteristics or the vascular plants ana- . , .,, ... ri

.

 r

. ~, ,. ...

 r vide more suitable conditions tor these taxa over

lyzed 7 . 1 hese are discussed below. , ,nn tc / ,\ i j-rr

 the next 100 years (fig. 4.1), but differences

among alternatives for all plant species combined

are slight (fig. 4.2).

Terrestrial 557
Table 4.3. Mean likelihood scores of viability outcomes for selected species of vascular plants for evaluation of ICBEMP management alternatives. Likelihood scores for each period or alternative sum to 100

points. High scores indicate high likelihood of an outcome. Means are calculated from the individual likelihood scores of panelists.

Period / Alternative3

Species Name Area1 Outcome2 H C A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7

Astragalus mulfordiae EEIS BLM/FS 1 00000000 0

2 00000000 0

3 80 60 30 50 50 65 50 65 50

4 20 40 60 40 40 25 40 25 40

5 0 0 10 10 10 10 10 10 10

EElSCumEff 1 00000000 0

2 00000000 0

3 80 70 30 50 50 60 40 60 50

4 20 20 60 40 40 30 40 30 40

5 0 10 10 10 10 10 20 10 10

UCRB BLM/FS 1 00000000 0

2 00000000 0

3 80 70 30 50 50 65 50 65 50

4 20 30 60 40 40 25 40 25 40

5 0 0 10 10 10 10 10 10 10

UCRBCumEff 1 00000000 0

2 00000000 0

3 80 60 20 40 40 55 40 55 40

4 20 40 60 40 40 30 40 30 40

5 0 0 20 20 20 15 20 15 20

Astragalus oniciformis UCRB BLM/FS 1 00000000 0

2 00000000 0

3 90 60 40 40 55 60 55 60 70

4 10 40 40 40 40 30 40 30 20

5 0 0 20 20 5 10 5 10 10

UCRBCumEff 1 00000000 0

2 00000000 0

3 90 60 50 50 60 60 60 60 50

4 10 40 45 45 30 30 30 30 40

5 0 0 5 5 10 10 10 10 10

Astragalus paysonii UCRB BLM/FS 1 00000000 0

2 00000000 0

3 80 70 70 60 85 90 85 90 85

4 20 30 30 40 15 10 15 10 15

5 00000000 0

UCRBCumEff 1 00000000 0

2 00000000 0

3 80 70 70 60 85 90 85 90 85

4 20 30 30 40 15 10 15 10 15

5 00000000 0

Astragalus solitarius EEIS BLM/FS 1 00000000 0

2 00000000 0

3 80 70 70 70 70 80 70 80 70

4 20 30 30 30 30 20 30 20 30

5 00000000 0

558 Terrestrial
Table 4.3 (continued)

Period / Alternative3

Species Name Area1 Outcome2 H C A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7

EElSCumEff 1 00000000 0

2 00000000 0

3 80 70 70 70 70 80 70 80 70

4 20 30 30 30 30 20 30 20 30

5 00000000 0

Astragalus yoder-williamsii UCRB BLM/FS 1 00000000 0

2 00000000 0

3 90 70 80 70 70 90 80 90 80

4 10 20 10 20 20 5 10 5 10

5 0 10 10 10 10 5 10 5 10

UCRBCumEff 1 00000000 0

2 00000000 0

3 90 70 80 70 70 90 80 90 80

4 10 20 10 20 20 5 10 5 10

5 0 10 10 10 10 5 10 5 10

Botrychium ascendens EEIS BLM/FS 1 00000000 0

2 00000000 0

3 50 50 80 80 70 70 70 70 80

4 50 50 20 20 30 30 30 30 20

5 00000000 0

UCRB BLM/FS 1 00000000 0

2 00000000 0

3 5 0 5 0 000000 0

4 50 50 40 60 30 40 30 40 30

5 0 0 60 40 70 60 70 60 70

UCRBCumEff 1 00000000 0

2 00000000 0

3 5 0 5 0 000000 0

4 50 50 40 40 40 40 40 40 40

5 0 0 60 60 60 60 60 60 60

Botrychium crenulatum EEIS BLM/FS 1 00000000 0

2 00000000 0

3 50 50 30 60 60 40 20 40 60

4 50 50 30 30 30 40 40 40 30

5 0 0 40 10 10 20 40 20 10

EElSCumEff 1 00000000 0

2 00000000 0

3 50 50 30 60 60 40 20 40 60

4 50 50 30 30 30 40 40 40 30

5 0 0 40 10 10 20 40 20 10

UCRB BLM/FS 1 00000000 0

2 00000000 0

3 40 40 10 40 40 20 10 20 40

4 60 60 40 40 40 40 40 40 40

5 0 0 50 20 20 40 50 40 20

UCRBCumEff 1 00000000 0

2 00000000 0

3 4 0 4 0 000000 0

4 60 60 40 40 40 40 40 40 40

5 0 0 60 60 60 60 60 60 60

Terrestrial 559
Table 4.3 (continued)

Period / Alternative3

Species Name Area1 Outcome2 H C A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7

Botrychium paradoxum EEIS BLM/FS 1 00000000 0

2 00000000 0

3 50 50 40 40 40 40 40 40 40

4 50 50 60 60 60 60 60 60 60

5 00000000 0

UCRB BLM/FS 1 00000000 0

2 00000000 0

3 50 50 40 40 40 40 40 40 40

4 50 50 60 60 60 60 60 60 60

5 00000000 0

Calochortus longebarbatus

var. longebarbatus EEIS BLM/FS 1 00000000 0

2 00000000 0

3 80 70 55 65 65 60 55 60 65

4 20 30 45 35 35 40 45 40 35

5 00000000 0

EElSCumEff 1 00000000 0

2 00000000 0

3 80 65 50 60 60 55 50 55 60

4 20 35 50 40 40 45 50 45 40

5 00000000 0

Calochortus longebarbatus

var.pedc/7 EEIS BLM/FS 1 00000000 0

2 00000000 0

3 100 80 80 90 90 80 70 80 90

4 0 20 20 10 10 20 30 20 10

5 00000000 0

EElSCumEff 1 00000000 0

2 00000000 0

3 100 75 80 90 90 80 70 80 90

4 0 25 20 10 10 20 30 20 10

5 00000000 0

Calochortus nitidus EEIS BLM/FS 1 00000000 0

2 00000000 0

3 60 30 30 30 50 50 50 50 20

4 40 70 70 70 50 50 50 50 80

5 00000000 0

EElSCumEff 1 00000000 0

2 00000000 0

3 60 25 25 25 45 45 45 45 20

4 40 75 75 75 55 55 55 55 80

5 00000000 0

UCRB BLM/FS 1 00000000 0

2 00000000 0

3 10 10 20 10 25 25 25 25 20

4 90 90 80 90 75 75 75 75 80

5 00000000 0

UCRBCumEff 1 00000000 0

2 00000000 0

3 7 0 1 0 555555 0

4 30 30 20 20 20 20 20 20 10

5 0 60 75 75 75 75 75 75 90

S60 Terrestrial
Table 4.3 (continued)

Period / Alternative3

Species Name Area1 Outcome2 H C A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7

Castilleja chlorotica EEIS BLM/FS 1 00000000 0

2 00000000 0

3 90 80 90 90 90 90 90 90 70

4 10 20 10 10 10 10 10 10 30

5 00000000 0

EEIS CumEff 1 00000000 0

2 00000000 0

3 90 80 90 90 90 90 90 90 65

4 10 20 10 10 10 10 10 10 35

5 00000000 0

Collomia mazama EEIS BLM/FS 1 00000000 0

2 00000000 0

3 90 90 90 90 80 90 80 90 90

4 10 10 10 10 20 10 20 10 10

5 00000000 0

EEIS CumEff 1 00000000 0

2 00000000 0

3 90 90 90 90 80 90 80 90 90

4 10 10 10 10 20 10 20 10 10

5 00000000 0

Cypripedium fasciculatum EEIS BLM/FS 1 00000000 0

2 70 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 0

3 30 60 60 60 80 80 80 80 70

4 0 30 30 30 10 10 10 10 30

5 00000000 0

EEIS CumEff 1 00000000 0

2 70 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10

3 30 60 60 60 70 70 70 70 70

4 0 25 25 25 15 15 15 15 15

5 05555555 5

UCRB BLM/FS 1 00000000 0

2 70 80 70 70 85 90 85 90 80

3 30 10 20 20 15 10 15 10 20

4 0 10 10 10 0 0 0 0 0

5 00000000 0

UCRB CumEff 1 00000000 0

2 60 70 70 80 70 90 65 90 85

3 40 20 20 10 20 5 25 5 15

4 0 10 10 10 10 5 10 5 0

5 00000000 0

Grindelia howellii UCRB BLM/FS 1 00000000 0

2 00000000 0

3 0 50 60 75 80 70 80 70 70

4 0 50 40 25 20 30 20 30 30

5 10 0 0000000 0

UCRB CumEff 1 00000000 0

2 00000000 0

3 0 60 85 85 85 85 85 85 85

4 60 40 15 15 15 15 15 15 15

5 4 0 0000000 0

Terrestrial 561
Table 4.3 (continued)

Period / Alternative3

Species Name Area' Outcome2 H C A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7

Hackelia cronquistii EEIS BLM/FS 1 00000000 0

2 00000000 0

3 50 40 30 35 30 50 35 45 45

4 50 60 60 60 65 45 60 45 45

5 0 0 10 5 5 5 5 10 10

EElSCumEff 1 00000000 0

2 00000000 0

3 50 30 30 30 30 40 30 35 40

4 50 70 70 70 70 60 70 65 60

5 00000000 0

Haplopappus liatriformis UCRB BLM/FS 1 00000000 0

2 8 0 0000000 0

3 2 0 0000000 0

4 0 20 10 10 10 10 10 10 10

5 0 80 90 90 90 90 90 90 90

UCRBCumEff 1 00000000 0

2 8 0 0000000 0

3 2 0 0000000 0

4 0 15 10 10 10 10 10 10 10

5 0 85 90 90 90 90 90 90 90

Howellia aquatilis EEIS BLM/FS 1 00000000 0

2 00000000 0

3 00000000 0

4 80 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75

5 20 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25

EElSCumEff 1 00000000 0

2 00000000 0

3 60 60 60 60 50 50 50 50 50

4 40 20 20 20 30 30 30 30 30

5 0 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20

UCRB BLM/FS 1 00000000 0

2 00000000 0

3 90 90 85 85 85 85 85 85 90

4 10 5 10 10 10 10 10 10 5

5 05555555 5

UCRBCumEff 1 00000000 0

2 00000000 0

3 90 90 80 80 80 80 80 80 90

4 10 5 10 10 10 10 10 10 5

5 0 5 10 10 10 10 10 10 5

Lomatium suksdorfii EEIS BLM/FS 1 00000000 0

2 00000000 0

3 00000000 0

4 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50

5 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50

EElSCumEff 1 00000000 0

2 00000000 0

3 60 50 40 40 40 40 40 40 40

4 40 50 60 60 60 60 60 60 60

5 00000000 0

S82 Terrestrial
Table 4.3 (continued)

Period / Alternative3

Species Name Area1 Outcome2 H C A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7

Mimulus pygmaeus EEIS BLM/FS 1 00000000 0

2 00000000 0

3 90 80 80 85 80 85 80 85 80

4 10 20 20 15 20 15 20 15 20

5 00000000 0

EElSCumEff 1 00000000 0

2 00000000 0

3 90 80 80 85 80 85 80 85 80

4 10 20 20 15 20 15 20 15 20

5 00000000 0

Mimulus washlngtonensis

var. washingtonensis EEIS BLM/FS 1 00000000 0

2 00000000 0

3 30 20 20 30 30 30 30 30 20

4 70 80 80 70 70 70 70 70 80

5 00000000 0

EElSCumEff 1 00000000 0

2 00000000 0

3 30 20 20 30 30 30 30 30 20

4 70 80 80 70 70 70 70 70 80

5 00000000 0

Mirabilis macfarlanei EEIS BLM/FS 1 00000000 0

2 00000000 0

3 90 5 5 10 10 10 10 10 20

4 10 90 90 80 80 80 80 80 70

5 0 5 5 10 10 10 10 10 10

EElSCumEff 1 00000000 0

2 00000000 0

3 90 0 10 10 10 10 10 10 10

4 10 50 50 60 60 60 60 60 70

5 0 50 40 30 30 30 30 30 20

UCRB BLM/FS 1 00000000 0

2 00000000 0

3 90 25 25 30 30 30 30 30 30

4 10 70 70 65 65 65 65 65 70

5 05555555 0

UCRBCumEff 1 00000000 0

2 00000000 0

3 90 10 10 20 20 20 20 20 20

4 10 80 80 70 70 70 70 70 70

5 0 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10

Penstemon glaucinus EEIS BLM/FS 1 00000000 0

2 00000000 0

3 40 70 80 80 80 80 80 80 75

4 60 30 20 20 20 20 20 20 25

5 00000000 0

EElSCumEff 1 00000000 0

2 00000000 0

3 40 70 80 80 80 80 80 80 75

4 60 30 20 20 20 20 20 20 25

5 00000000 0

Terrestrial 563
Table 4.3 (continued)

Period / Alternative3

Species Name Area1 Outcome2 H C A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7

Penstemon lemhiensis UCRB BLM/FS 1 00000000 0

2 00000000 0

3 70 40 40 40 80 90 80 90 40

4 30 50 50 50 20 10 20 10 60

5 0 10 10 10 0 0 0 0 0

UCRBCumEff 1 00000000 0

2 00000000 0

3 70 30 30 30 70 80 70 80 40

4 30 60 60 60 30 20 30 20 60

5 0 10 10 10 0 0 0 0 0

Polemonium pectinatum EEIS BLM/FS 1 00000000 0

2 00000000 0

3 00000000 0

4 60 50 50 50 55 55 55 55 50

5 40 50 50 50 45 45 45 45 50

EElSCumEff 1 00000000 0

2 8 0 0000000 0

3 2 0 0000000 0

4 0 1 0 555555 5

5 0 90 95 95 95 95 95 95 95

Silene spaldingii EEIS BLM/FS 1 00000000 0

2 00000000 0

3 0 0 0 0 10 10 10 10 0

4 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50

5 50 50 50 50 40 40 40 40 50

EElSCumEff 1 00000000 0

2 8 0 0000000 0

3 2 0 0000000 0

4 0 20 10 10 10 10 10 10 10

5 0 80 90 90 90 90 90 90 90

Stephanomeria

malheurensis EEIS BLM/FS 1 00000000 0

2 00000000 0

3 00000000 0

4 00000000 0

5 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Trifolium thompsonii EEIS BLM/FS 1 00000000 0

2 00000000 0

3 50 50 40 40 45 50 45 50 45

4 50 50 60 60 55 50 55 50 55

5 00000000 0

EElSCumEff 1 00000000 0

2 00000000 0

3 50 50 45 45 50 55 50 55 50

4 50 50 55 55 50 45 50 45 50

5 0 0 000000 0

'Area: EEIS BLM/FS - Eastern Oregon and Washington planning area, BLM and Forest Service lands only; EEIS CumEff- all lands in Eastern

Oregon and Washington planning area; UCRB BLM/FS - Upper Columbia Basin planning area, BLM and Forest Service lands only; UCRB

CumEfF - all lands in Upper Columbia Basin planning area.

' Outcome; 1 - contiguous; 2 - gaps; 3 - patchy; 4 - isolated; 5 - scarce. See text for complete explanation.

'Period / Alternative: H - historical pre-European settlement period; C - current; Al - alternative 1; A2 - alternative 2; etc.

564 Terrestrial
Table 4.4. Mean viability outcomes for habitat and populations of vascular plants for evaluation of

ICBEMP management alternatives. Mean outcomes were calculated as the weighted mean of average likelihood scores in each outcome.

Period / Alternative2

Name Area1 H C A1 A2 A3 A4 AS A6 A7

Astragalus mulfordiae EEIS BLM/FS 3.2 3.4 3.8 3.6 3.6 3.5 3.6 3.5 3.6

EElSCumEff 3.2 3.4 3.8 3.6 3.6 3.5 3.8 3.5 3.6

UCRB BLM/FS 3.2 3.3 3.83 3.6 3.6 3.5 3.6 3.5 3.6

UCRB CumEff 3.2 3.4 4.03 3.8 3.8 3.6 3.8 3.6 3.8

Astragalus oniciformis UCRB BLM/FS 3.1 3.4 3.8 3.8 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.4

UCRB CumEff 3.1 3.4 3.6 3.6 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.6

Astragalus paysonii UCRB BLM/FS 3.2 3.3 3.3 3.4 3.2 3.1 3.2 3.1 3.2

UCRB CumEff 3.2 3.3 3.3 3.4 3.2 3.1 3.2 3.1 3.2

Astragalus solitarius EEIS BLM/FS 3.2 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.2 3.3 3.2 3.3

EElSCumEff 3.2 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.2 3.3 3.2 3.3

Astragalus yoder-williamsii UCRB BLM/FS 3.1 3.4 3.3 3.4 3.4 3.2 3.3 3.2 3.3

UCRB CumEff 3.1 3.4 3.3 3.4 3.4 3.2 3.3 3.2 3.3

Botrychium ascendens EEIS BLM/FS 3.5 3.5 3.2 3.2 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.2

UCRB BLM/FS 3.5 3.5 4.63 4.43 4.73 4.63 4.73 4.63 4.73

UCRB CumEff 3.5 3.5 4.63 4.63 4.63 4.63 4.63 4.63 4.63

Botrychium crenulatum EEIS BLM/FS 3.5 3.5 4.13 3.5 3.5 3.8 4.23 3.8 3.5

EElSCumEff 3.5 3.5 4.13 3.5 3.5 3.8 4.23 3.8 3.5

UCRB BLM/FS 3.6 3.6 4.43 3.8 3.8 4.23 4.43 4.23 3.8

UCRB CumEff 3.6 3.6 4.63 4.63 4.63 4.63 4.63 4.63 4.63

Botrychium paradoxum EEIS BLM/FS 3.5 3.5 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6

UCRB BLM/FS 3.5 3.5 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6

Calochortus longebarbatus var.

longebarbatus EEIS BLM/FS 3.2 3.3 3.5 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.5 3.4 3.4

EElSCumEff 3.2 3.4 3.5 3.4 3.4 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.4

Calochortus longebarbatus var.

peckii EEIS BLM/FS 3.0 3.2 3.2 3.1 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.2 3.1

EElSCumEff 3.0 3.3 3.2 3.1 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.2 3.1

Calochortus nitidus EEIS BLM/FS 3.4 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.8

EElSCumEff 3.4 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.8

UCRB BLM/FS 3.9 3.9 3.8 3.9 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8

UCRB CumEff 3.3 4.5 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.9

Castilleja chlorotica EEIS BLM/FS 3.1 3.2 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.3

EElSCumEff 3.1 3.2 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.4

Collomia mazama EEIS BLM/FS 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.2 3.1 3.2 3.1 3.1

EElSCumEff 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.2 3.1 3.2 3.1 3.1-

Cypripedium fasciculatum EEIS BLM/FS 2.3 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.3

EElSCumEff 2.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2

UCRB BLM/FS 2.3 2.3 2.4 2.4 2.2 2.1 2.2 2.1 2.2

UCRB CumEff 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.3 2.4 2.2 2.5 2.2 2.2

Grindelia howellii UCRB BLM/FS 5.0 3.5 3.4 3.3 3.2 3.3 3.2 3.3 3.3

UCRB CumEff 4.4 3.4 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2

Terrestrial 565
Table 4.4 (continued)

Period / Alternative2

Name Area1 H C A1 A2 A3 A4 AS A6 A7

Hackelia cronquistii EEIS BLM/FS 3.5 3.6 3.8 3.7 3.8 3.6 3.7 3.7 3.7

EElSCumEff 3.5 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.6 3.7 3.7 3.6

Haplopappus liatriformis UCRB BLM/FS 2.2 4.8 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9

UCRBCumEff 2.2 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9

Howellia aquatilis EEIS BLM/FS 4.2 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3

EElSCumEff 3.4 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7

UCRB BLM/FS 3.1 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2

UCRBCumEff 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.2

Lomatium suksdorfii EEIS BLM/FS 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5

EElSCumEff 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6

Mimulus pygmaeus EEIS BLM/FS 3.1 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2

EElSCumEff 3.1 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2

Mimulus washingtonensis var.

washingtonensis EEIS BLM/FS 3.7 3.8 3.8 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.8

EElSCumEff 3.7 3.8 3.8 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.8

Mirabilis macfarlanei EEIS BLM/FS 3.1 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.9

EElSCumEff 3.1 4.5 4.3 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.1

UCRB BLM/FS 3.1 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.7

UCRBCumEff 3.1 4.0 4.0 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9

Penstemon glaucinus EEIS BLM/FS 3.6 3.3 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.3

EElSCumEff 3.6 3.3 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.3

Penstemon lemhiensis UCRB BLM/FS 3.3 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.23 3.13 3.23 3.13 3.6

UCRBCumEff 3.3 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.33 3.23 3.33 3.23 3.6

Polemonium pectinatum EEIS BLM/FS 4.4 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5

EElSCumEff 2.2 4.9 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

Silene spaldingii EEIS BLM/FS 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.5

EElSCumEff 2.2 4.8 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9

Stephanomeria malheurensis EEIS BLM/FS 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

Trifolium thompsonii EEIS BLM/FS 3.5 3.5 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.5 3.6 3.5 3.6

EElSCumEff 3.5 3.5 3.6 3.6 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5

'Area: EEIS BLM/FS - Eastern Oregon and Washington planning area, BLM and Forest Service lands only; EEIS CumEff - all lands in Eastern

Oregon and Washington planning area; UCRB BLM/FS - Upper Columbia Basin planning area, BLM and Forest Service lands only; UCRB

CumEff - all lands in Upper Columbia Basin planning area.

2

Period / Alternative: H - historical pre-European settlement period; C - current; Al - alternative 1; A2 - alternative 2; etc.

'Mean outcome for alternative departs from current outcome by greater than or equal to 0.5 units. Outcomes reported in table were rounded to

0.1 units; but, differences were calculated to 0.01 units. Hence, departure calculated from the table may be misleading.

Rare taxa that were evaluated varied in their sue- hoivellii, Penstemon glaucinus). This response is

cessional relations, which substantially influenced best exemplified by Grindelia howellii, for which it

the projected outcomes. Some of the regional is believed that moderate habitat disturbance

endemic taxa are associated with early-serai habi- (from historic to current conditions) has led to

tats (for example, Astragalus paysonii, Grindelia an increase in abundance (fig. 4.3). Such species

58$ Terrestrial
are nonetheless often considered of rangewide Species that are essentially confined to late-serai

conservation concern, despite their occurrence in community types include those affiliated with the

disturbed settings. This is because of their limited Palouse grasslands throughout all, or a significant

geographic ranges and the typically low number portion, of their ranges. The Palouse prairie vegeof populations that occur in more stable habitats. tation type is estimated to have been eliminated

Their affinity to ephemeral, frequently disturbed from 98 percent of its original acreage (Risser

habitats renders them more susceptible to fre- 1981) owing primarily to agricultural conversion

quent local extirpations. In these cases, prescrip- of non-Federal lands. Four of the rare plant taxa

tions that include maintenance or creation of analyzed are associated with this community type,

canopy openings, via silvicultural treatment or and have some of their occurrences on Federal

prescribed burning, were rated as more likely lands; these include Calochortus nitidus, Haploto produce favorable habitat and population pappus Liatriformis, Polemonium pectinatum, and

conditions. Silene spaldingii. All of these have suffered extensive historical losses of habitat and populations in

Mid-serai species include such taxa as Cypripedtum the non_Federal portions of their ranges. In addi_

fasciculatum (scattered distribution) and CastiUeja ^ Qne .^ ^ occurs exclusively on non.

chlontica (regional endemic). As illustrated for the Federa, knds (Aster jessicae) is dso ^od^d with

former species in figure 44, the alternatives that ^ community ^. its viability has been even

include prescriptions involving thinning or pre- more seriously and adversely affected. Extant popscribed burning, such that partial shade or small ^^ of these taxa afe found omy in high.

openings might be enhanced, were rated as likely .j remnants of such habitats. While the preto produce more favorable outcomes. liminary draft EISs do not include proposed alternatives that would directly affect these species on

non-Federal lands, the species are all of serious

Figure 4.3 Grindelia hOWellH conservation concern within the Basin, as is the

I ir^DD remaining extant Palouse grassland in general. The

_ outcomes for C. nitidus and S. spaldingii exempliI 1 fy this group of regional endemic species, and are

1 1 - Federal Cumulative indicated in figures 4.5 and 4.6, respectively. The

p "*" "^" cumulative effects of extreme loss of habitat and

"3 2 — population integrity on non-Federal lands are

^ clearly evident, especially for S. spaldingii in the

§§ 3 - EEIS area, and for C. nitidus in the UCRB area.

2 fip^-S —* ' * ATM7 prescriptions that would reduce the habitat

§ ff^ on the Federal portions of these species' ranges are

•§> ^ '// expected to have more serious, negative effects on

5 / them. These results also strongly indicate the criti5 a ----- - cal role that Federal lands play as refugia for the

1 extant habitats and populations of these, and

H C A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 many other, plant taxa of rangewide conservation

Alternative concern.

Figure 4.3. Weighted mean outcome scores for Grindelia how- The upland snrub group is another plant commueUii in the UCRB planning area for historic current, and m rf maJQr

 jm nce in providing

future conditions under seven preliminary draft tlo alterna- \ \ • r i i r • i

tives. Solid line indicates scores for habitat conditions on habitat for vascular plants of rangewide conservaFederal lands only; open line indicates projected populations tion concern in the Basin, specifically the sagefrom cumulative effects analysis. These lines are for illustrative brush region of the upper Snake and Columbia

purposes only; they do not imply trends between alternatives. Rjver plams pjve regional endemic species,

Terrestrial 587
including Penstemon kmhiensis and four taxa in exemplify these species, and are summarized in

the genus Astragalus (A. mulfordiae, A. oniciformis, figures 4.7 and 4.8, respectively. Suitable habitat

A. solitarius, and A. yoder-williamsif), are primarily for all of these taxa was historically more abunassociated with such upland shrub communities. dant, but has decreased in quantity, quality, and

The outcomes for A. mulfordiae and P. lemhiensis contiguity, producing less favorable current outFigure 4.4 Cypripedium fasciculatum

EEIS UCRB

|

2

k

 2 L=fr-«-*-*=^s^^

la-V • •-• • • e-1 3

L i .

 4 | i

5 Federal Cumulative Federal Cumulative

«I- I* ^ I I 5 [• I •& I -

HCA1A2A3A4A5A6A 7 H C A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7

Alternative Alternative

Figure 4.4. Weighted mean outcome scores for Cypripedium fasciculatum in the EEIS and UCRB planning areas for historic, current, and future conditions under seven preliminary draft EIS alternatives. Solid lines indicate scores for habitat conditions on

Federal lands only; open lines indicate projected populations from cumulative effects analysis. These lines are for illustrative purposes only; they do not imply trends between alternatives.

Figure 4.5 Calochortus nitidus

EEIS

 UCRB

1 [ I ^ I I . — 1

g -• Federal Cumulative 1 Federal Cumulative

I2 I—- - I I • a I r 2 - -

|4 ^M-»^-*-*-^. 'k^^^-^J

5 [ \3

5 5 [ l±!i~-~&—B—B—B—B—B->J

t : 1 5 \ ^

H C A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 H C A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7

Alternative Alternative

Figure 4.5. Weighted mean outcome scores for Calochortus nitidus in the EEIS and UCRB planning areas for historic, current,

and future conditions under seven preliminary draft EIS alternatives. Solid lines indicate scores for habitat conditions on Federal

lands only; open lines indicate projected populations from cumulative effects analysis. These lines are for illustrative purposes

only; they do not imply trends between alternatives.

568 Terrestrial
Figure 4.6 SHene SpaldingH comes. Such habitats would be largely unaffected

by the screens or aquatic buffers instituted under

ppio Alternative 2, so that for many of these taxa the

outcome ratings for Alternatives 1 and 2 were

[ 1 often essentially the same. Restoration prescripg 1 Federal Cumulative tions under Alternatives 4 and 6, specifically those

o that would restore the natural fire regime and

•3 2 ~n reduce grazing, have the possibility of returning

O \ some habitat to historic conditions, especially for

g _ \ Penstemon lemhiemis. Such prescriptions would be

2» \ favorable to all of these species, although for

"§ \ some, much of their former habitat has been conSjj 4 \ • • • • verted by range seedings, and will be difficult to

'5 •—HI • •""""^ • restore. Conversely, Alternatives 3, 5, and 7 are

^ c - -—~ H H H H—H H Q projected to result in less favorable habitat condi-

| I tions due to the spread of exotic species, habitat

H C A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 conversion to non-native grass seedings, grazing,

Alternative and changes in the fire regime.

Figure 4.6. Weighted mean outcome scores for Silene Three Botrychium species with scattered distribuspaUingii in the EEIS planning area for historic, current, and tions were assessed. These widespread taxa occur

future conditions under seven preliminary draft EIS alterna- sparsely on Federal lands across both planning

lives. Solid line indicates scores for habitat conditions on ,, LL-J--U - J .. »

,,,,, , , .. . ,. . , ,. areas, although their distributions and status are Federal lands only; open line indicates projected populations «u«-«v>, <uui^u&» ^

from cumulative effects analysis. These lines are for illustra- not as well understood as the other vascular plants

tive purposes only; they do not imply trends between alterna- analyzed. Botrychium crenulatum, a species that is

tives. often associated with moist old-growth forest

Figure 4.7 Astragalus mulfordiae

EEIS UCRB

o 1 - Federal Cumulative 1 Federal Cumulative

1 • a « a

|

2

 ^- ^ 2-

H»-«. —m-^^^J

 3k=S, __-«-_-»^

3^-^^m-m-**^-* 4 ^Sgs*****^

M | 5[

H C A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 H C A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7

Alternative Alternative

Figure 4.7. Weighted mean outcome scores for Astragalus mulfordiae in the EEIS and UCRB planning areas for historic, current,

and future conditions under seven preliminary draft EIS alternatives. Solid lines indicate scores for habitat conditions on Federal

lands only; open lines indicate projected populations from cumulative effects analysis. These lines are for illustrative purposes

only; they do not imply trends between alternatives.

Terrestrial 569
stands of western red cedar, would benefit from Figure 4.8 PenSteiTIOn lemhietlSiS

the aquatic buffers proposed in Alternatives 2, 3,

and 7 (fig. 4.9). The implementation of the ripari- UCRB

an habitat management standards under Alternatives 2, 3, and 7 would be expected to slightly i 1

benefit habitat for two other taxa in addition to <u ' Federal Cumulative

B. crenulatum; they are Calochortus longebarbatus E -•• -&

var. longebarbatus and C. longebarbatus var. peckii. £ o . :

As noted previously, conservation agreements have ~

been adopted for seven of the plant species that W ~

we analyzed. In these cases, the existence of specif- ;g TM .xB^^S^^S1^

1

^^

ic standards and guidelines from the conservation -o ^a m ^^ Ti

strategies was considered in the rating process. £ 4 --

The standards would protect occupied habitats, .£?

and thus the long-term viability of such species, >

regardless of the prescriptions applied to their 5

general locations in the alternatives. In addition, I

numerous other plant taxa that were not analyzed, H C A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7

of both rangewide and State conservation con- Alternative

cern, have conservation agreements or strategies

• i j . -r*i , . • Figure 4.8. Weighted mean outcome scores tor Penstemon either approved or in preparation. 1 hese strategies ,

6

, . .. ,

5

TT/~n t> i r L- • I11-- I r • i _ u - lemhiensis i n th e UCRB planning area fo r historic, current,

Will provide a critical means of conserving habitat and ftimre conditions under seven preliminary draft EIS alterand population integrity at the local and sub- natives. Solid line indicates scores for habitat conditions on

regional scales. Federal lands only; open line indicates projected populations

from cumulative effects analysis. These lines are for illustrative

Because many of the taxa analyzed are either asso- purposes only; they do not imply trends between alternatives.

ciated with early- or mid-serai successional stages,

Figure 4.9 Botrychium crenulatum

EEIS UCRB

§

1 Federal Cumulative 1 Federal Cumulative

o • a • a

J2-.. 2 "- '

I3- I 3

H C A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 H C A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7

Alternative Alternative

Figure 4.9. Weighted mean outcome scores for Botrychium crenulatum in the EEIS and UCRB planning areas for historic, current,

and future conditions under seven preliminary draft EIS alternatives. Solid lines indicate scores for habitat conditions on Federal

lands only; open lines indicate projected populations from cumulative effects analysis. These lines are for illustrative purposes

only; they do not imply trends between alternatives. Weighted mean scores were equal in the EEIS planning area for the Federal

habitat and the cumulative effects assessments.

S7D Terrestrial
or would benefit from restoration prescriptions newt were BLM and/or Forest Service sensitive

emphasized under Alternatives 4 and 6, Alterna- species. The northern leopard frog, tiger salative 7 was generally rated as less favorable (fig. mander, and Woodhouse's toad were initially

4.2). The reserve strategy of Alternative 7 was selected because of past population declines,

judged to be less effective in maintaining the because their habitat has declined from historic

dynamic habitat conditions favorable to these levels, or because possible habitat declines were

species. projected under at least one preliminary draft EIS

In conclusion, a key limitation of the analysis of

effects on plants should be reiterated. The majori- The list of reptilian species initially presented to

ty of the plant taxa of greatest rangewide conser- the panel for assessment included the desert

vation concern in the Basin have not been horned lizard, longnose leopard lizard, Mojave

addressed here, because they could not be mean- black-collared lizard, night snake, painted turtle,

ingfully assessed at this broad scale. Assessed ringneck snake, rubber boa, sagebrush lizard,

species include only those that, by virtue of their sharptail snake, short-horned lizard, striped whipbroader distributions or habitat associations, could snake, and western pond turtle. The sagebrush

be analyzed at the scale of the preliminary draft lizard was included because it was a USFWS C2

EIS areas. In addition, there are many plant taxa species, as was the western pond turtle because it

that, while secure on a rangewide level, are rare at was a USFWS C3 species and was considered a

the state level in one or more states in the Basin. sensitive species by the FS or BLM. The painted

Conservation of these species of local concern is turtle, night snake, and ringneck snake were

also an important consideration, as their popula- included because they are considered sensitive

tions often occur largely or wholly on Federal species by the Forest Service or BLM. The desert

lands. These peripheral or disjunct populations horned lizard, longnose leopard lizard, Mojave

may also be genetically divergent from those with- black-collared lizard, short-horned lizard, rubber

in the main range of the species. Many such taxa boa, sharptail snake, and striped whipsnake were

of state or sub-regional concern are currently des- initially included because of past population

ignated as sensitive by the Forest Service or BLM, declines, because their habitat has declined from

along with those that are of concern on a historic levels, or because possible habitat declines

rangewide scale. were projected under at least one of the preliminary draft EIS alternatives.

Amphibians and Reptiles Methods-During panel discussions, we

Introduction—The overall "Methods for dropped the rough-skinned newt from further

Assessing Effects on Terrestrial Species" section consideration because the Idaho and Montana

outlines the process used to select the amphibian populations may not be native and the species is

and reptile species that were assessed. The list of not considered sensitive in Idaho. The Cascades

selected amphibian species includes the Cascades and red-legged frogs were dropped from further

frog, Coeur d'Alene salamander, northern leopard consideration because the species' ranges within

frog, red-legged frog, rough-skinned newt, spotted the Basin fall entirely within the area of the

frog, tailed frog, tiger salamander, western toad, Northwest Forest Plan (NFP). The EEIS and

and Woodhouse's toad (scientific names of verte- UCRB preliminary draft EIS alternatives are not

brate species are in appendix 4-C). At the time of designed to reduce the habitat provided by the

our assessment, the Cascades frog, red-legged frog, NFP. The NFP was considered to sufficiently

spotted frog, tailed frog, and western toad were address these species' habitat requirements on

identified as USFWS C2 Candidate species, and Federal land. Therefore, additional analysis was

the Coeur d'Alene salamander and rough-skinned considered unnecessary. The panel concluded that

Terrestrial 871
the tiger salamander would not be affected by 0.5 outcome units between current and the promanagement practices on Federal lands, and that jected future under each preliminary draft EIS

ranching and farming may have increased the alternative are shown in figures 4.14 and 4.15.

species'distribution. Thus, the tiger salamander _. . TT , . • , ., rTM» ,

was not considered further. The spotted frog was Discussion-Habitat on lands outside of BLMsplit into two species for evaluation by the

 and

 FS-administered land has declined due to

panel-spotted frog species A and spotted frog conversion to agricultural and urban uses. Habitat

species B (Green and others 1996). The final list for amphibians on BLM- and FS-administered

c IM- • i j-ijj u land, although reduced from historic conditions,

of amphibian species evaluated included the . . ' ,.,?, , , ,. r, , , , ,

Coeur d'Alene salamander, western toad,

 1S

 !fs modified than habitat on non-Federal land

Woodhouse's toad, tailed frog, spotted frog

 and

 ?**?* an lmP°«ant rol<= 'n providing for these

species A, spotted frog species B, and northern species Restoring historic habitat conditions

i i r across the federal landscape is a critical step

leopard frog. . ....

 r

 . c

 r

...

toward re-establishment or retention of amphibChanges were also made in the list of reptilian ian and reptilian populations throughout the

species that we assessed. During panel discussions, ICBEMP planning area. Some alternatives would

the ringneck snake was deleted from further con- begin to restore habitat on Federal lands.

sideration because there are very few locality _. .... ... . . j • i • ID- j i r uj 1 he amphibian and reptilian assessment panel

records within the Basin and the panelists had • , -r , -r~ •, , i /• i

insufficient information about the species to eval- identified specific attributes that were key for evaluate effects of the preliminary draft EIS alterna-

 uating hab'tat on Federal lands' These mcluded:

tives. The panel added the common garter snake

 nParian habltat re[en"on and restor!TM> grazin§

to the list because the panel concluded that the f1"

6TM^ on

 rangelands management of wet-

• • j i- • • TJ L lands, percentage or land reserved rrom groundspecies i s declining i n Idaho. |.i - •• • • r r Fi r

disturbing activities, restoration errorts, levels or

Results—Following the assessment panel, we timber harvest, amounts of forest fragmentation,

adjusted the species outcomes in the Forest restoration of upland native plant communities,

Service and BLM habitat evaluation for the Coeur and conversion to non-native vegetation.

d'Alene salamander, northern leopard frog, _. . .. r .

Oregon spotted frog, Woodhouse's toad, and

 The most imP°«ant

 attributes for evaluating

sharptail snake. These adjustments addressed the cumulative effects on species populations, in additendency of panelists to reflect cumulative effects «on to those listed above, included pollution

in the Federal habitat assessment. The adjust- (agricultural chemical runoff), introduction of

ments also reflected improved riparian habitat non-native predators (bullfrogs crappie, buegill,

/ • • r i and bass), conversion to agriculture, hingal

retention/restoration provisions for some alterna- .. , , , , •• •

tives that were obtained after the panel discussion *"**?> wetland development, water diversion,

had concluded. Results are shown in table 4.5, the 8lobal chmaf change, effects of glaciers receding

c i IT ii resulting in fragmented populations, ultraviolet

mean outcomes for each species (following any ,..

 & i . i iir

j. x j ii / /• i • i j radiation, water control at maior dams, lack of

adjustments), and table 4.6, the weighted mean .. ,. .. „ .' . . .

c j j j • • r i enforcement of reptile collection by commercial

species outcomes. Standard deviations of these „ j • / • i, L , , ,

outcomes are shown in appendix 4-D. The collectors, predation (especially by skunks and

weighted means for each alternative are shown in raccoons), and development/urbanization,

figures 4.10 and 4.11. The number of species Amphibians—The results for habitat on BLMwhose weighted mean fell into each outcome and FS-administered lands were generally similar

under each alternative is shown in figures 4.12 for the amphibians and riparian-associated reptiles

and 4.13, and the numbers of species whose indicating that current habitat on these lands has

weighted mean outcome changed by more than declined from its historic distribution (table 4.5

_,,_, TMTMTMTM_,_ „

ll^pll Terrestrial
and fig. 4.10). Habitat conditions for most as a metapopulation), 50 percent likelihood of

riparian-associated species have declined on BLM- Outcome 4 (habitat typically distributed as isolatand FS-administered lands by one outcome level ed patches, limited dispersal among patches, and

(table 4.6 and fig. 4.12). Habitat that had histori- some local extirpations), and 10 percent likelically broad or patchy distribution, with at least hood of Outcome 5 (scarce habitat, little or no

limited interactions between populations, has population interactions, and strong potential for

been reduced to habitat that is now distributed as extirpations). Current conditions were estimated

isolated patches. This has resulted in strong limi- to have increased likelihood of Outcomes 4 and 5,

tations on interactions between populations, some and this trend was projected to continue under

local extirpations, and slow recolonization. For Alternatives 1 and 5 (table 4.5). Slight improvethese species, Federal land habitat declines from ments in habitat or no change would occur under

historic conditions are primarily tied to increased Alternatives 2, 3, 4, 6, and 7. These outcomes

human disturbance, fragmentation of habitat, and reflect our estimation of increases in ground disreduced riparian area acreage and quality. turbing activity near sites inhabited by Coeur

... .11 . ... r , d'Alene salamander. We suggest a need for continFurther decline in habitat conditions for the ued gu ^ site. dfic protection) avoiding

riparian-associated amphibian species is generally hydrologic disturbance during road building, and

projected under Alternatives 1 and 5 (fig. 4.12). restricting insecticide spraying near suitable habiAlternatives 2, 3, 4, 6, and 7 provide habitat qual- ^ The evaluation of cumulative effects on popuity, quantity, and distribution that are similar to ^dons $u an increased likelihood of

current habitat conditions, or slightly increased, Outcome 5 under the alternatives, with all alterfor most amphibians and riparian-associated rep- nadyes haym a likelihood of 50 or more ims

tiles (figs. 4.12 and 4.14). Cumulative effects on m Outcome 5 This refleas efifects of man.

populations of these species generally result m agement and disturbance, and a likelihood of

more isolated populations and, m some cases, -mcieaised fragmentation and isolation of populacontnbute to higher risks of extirpation. ^ due w global warming

Coeur d'Alene salamander. The Coeur d'Alene Wegtem toad The fan of ^ ^^ toad

salamander occurs in northeastern Idaho, north- encompasses most of the Basin, with gaps in

western Montana, and British Columbia. There rangeknds in the Columbia Plateau, the Northern

are currently about 120 known populations Great Basin> y Snake and Q he£ ^ knds

About 80 percent of the habitat within the UCRB The j ted that the perimeter for

EIS area is managed by the Forest Service and ^ ^^ tQad ^ nM ch d> bm ^

much of the remainder is on private industrial lations whhm ^ ran haye ^^ in some

land. Coeur d Alene salamander is found in locations (Blaustein and others 1994). Nussbaum

springs seeps spray zones, and wet talus slopes in ^ others (1983) described the breedin habitat

forested areas below 5,000 feet. The species gener- of western toads as in ls> ds> lake shal.

ally does not move far from the riparian zone. ^ and slow moying ^^ of streams Much

We considered the size of riparian buffers around of the species' habitat within the Basin is on

intermittent streams and small wetlands, and lev- Federal land.

els of harvest in currently undisturbed forest as Timber ^^ she of ri ian buffers> in

the most important attributes when evaluating the imensi and restoradon of habitat were impor.

effects of the alternatives on habitat on Federal ^ considerations in evaluating the effects of

land. We estimated historic conditions for Coeur ^ ^^^ on habhat on Federal Iand_ The

d Alene salamander as 40 percent likelihood of UCRB £IS afea ^ ^ lowef oyerall Qut_

Outcome 3 (habitat primarily as patches, limited comes under ^ dmeframes and EIS ^„^1^

species interactions, and subpopulations interact

Terrestrial 573
Figure 4.10 Amphibians

EEIS UCRB

1 I i =|I 1 I | =;

Federal Cumulative Federal Cumulative

• Q- * Q

2 - 2 - —

E

*'.•/ \ .' '*.• S—a—Q. • ,J3'"

a* a V V

5 I—i i i i j_ i i i i c i i i i i i i i i

H C A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 H C A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7

Alternative Alternative

Figure 4.10. Mean outcome scores averaged over six species of amphibians in the EEIS and UCRB planning areas for historic,

current, and projected future conditions under seven preliminary draft EIS alternatives. Solid lines indicate scores for habitat conditions on Federal lands only; dashed lines indicate projected populations from cumulative effects analysis. These lines are for

illustrative purposes only; they do not imply trends between alternatives.

Figure 4.11 Reptiles

EEIS UCRB

i I i n I 1 I i n Federal Cumulative Federal Cumulative

» •& • Q

o — o -

"S o \ o Qv „.&-&»a. ^&r"° O 3 — V- - - _ 3 - '13- -T3-

i •v,.-J3"

s

"

a

-^.-0

o 19 n

2

4 - 4

5 L—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—J 5 L 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 L.

H C A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 H C A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7

Alternative Alternative

Figure 4.11. Mean outcome scores averaged over 11 species of reptiles in the EEIS planning area and nine species in the UCRB

planning area for historic, current, and projected future conditions under seven preliminary draft EIS alternatives. Solid lines indicate scores for habitat conditions on Federal lands only; dashed lines indicate projected populations from cumulative effects analysis. These lines are for illustrative purposes only; they do not imply trends between alternatives.

S74 Terrestrial
Figure 4.12 Amphibians

Figure 4.12. Frequency distribution of mean habitat outcome scores for six species of amphibians on Federal lands in the EEIS

and UCRB planning areas for historic, current, and projected future conditions under seven preliminary draft EIS alternatives.

See "Methods for Assessing Species and Habitat Outcomes" fot full definition of each outcome score and for ranges of weighted

mean outcome values used to define each outcome score.

Figure 4.13 Reptiles

Figure 4.13. Frequency distribution of mean habitat outcome scores for 11 species of reptiles on Federal lands in the EEIS planning area and 10 species in the UCRB planning area for historic, current, and projected future conditions under seven preliminary draft EIS alternatives. See "Methods for Assessing Species and Habitat Outcomes" for full definition of each outcome score

and for ranges of weighted mean outcome values used to define each outcome score.

Terrestrial
Figure 4.14 Amphibians

Change from Current to Future

EEIS UCRB

Figure 4.14. Departure of habitat outcomes on Federal lands from current conditions to each alternative for six species of amphibians in the EEIS and UCRB planning areas. Departure is estimated as a change of weighted mean outcome of 0.5 units or greater.

Figure 4.15 Reptiles

Change from Current to Future

Figure 4.15. Departure of habitat outcomes on Federal lands from current conditions under each alternative for 11 species of reptiles in the EEIS planning area and 10 species in the UCRB planning area. Departure is estimated as a change of weighted mean

outcome of 0.5 units or greater.

Terrestrial
The spread of points across three or more out- 1, 3, and 5, whereas Alternatives 2, 4, 6, and 7 are

comes suggests some uncertainty about the effects projected to somewhat reduce habitat fragmentaof the alternatives on the species' habitat (appen- tion. Cumulative effects strongly affect wooddix 4-D). The analysis of cumulative effects indi- house's toad populations as all alternatives have

cates that there is some likelihood of extirpation high (45 to 70%) likelihoods of Outcome 5

(Outcome 5) of western toad populations under (highly isolated populations having little or no

all alternatives, due to the poorly understood, population interactions and strong potential for

ongoing decline of amphibian populations, even extirpations). Most of the historic population loss

when suitable habitat is present. is associated with agricultural conversion, polluwr

 „ , , .. , . tion, conversion of habitat to non-native vegetaWoodhouses toad. Woodhouses toad occurs ^ and non.nadve dator introductions (buU.

within the Basin in two disjunct populations, in f e d f hi

southern Washington along the Columbia and

Snake Rivers and in southeastern Oregon and Tailed frog. The range of the tailed frog within

southwestern Idaho near the Snake River. the Basin is primarily within the forested land on

Nussbaum and others (1983) reported that in the the eastern slope of the Cascades, southeastern

Pacific Northwest these toads are at least partially Washington, Hells Canyon National Recreation

terrestrial during the non-breeding season. They Area, northern Idaho, and northwestern Montana,

forage at night near water in arid regions and dig Welsh (1990) reported that tailed frogs occur in

burrows or use rodent burrows during the day. isolated populations in and along streams in the

Breeding occurs in irrigation ditches and canals, Pacific Northwest and are highly specialized for

pools in streams, ponds, lake margins, and reser- life in cold, clear, fast-flowing, mountain streams,

voirs (Nussbaum and others 1983). Vegetation Tailed frogs inhabit streams with continuous flow

around breeding sites is not critical. Shallower, and cold, well-aerated waters and are not found in

ephemeral ponds that hold water into July are intermittent streams (Brown 1990). Daugherty

suitable for breeding habitat. Little of the species' and Sheldon (1982) reported that no adults

range in Washington is on Federal land and moved more than 40 meters from first capture

approximately 30 percent of the range in southern sites during their study, although when air ternOregon and Idaho is on Federal land (BLM). peratures are low and humidity is high, adults

_,. . r r i • i n- r

 ma7 move into woods near creeks to forage. Bury

The important factors for evaluating the effects of and Com (198g) ed some ^^ 10Q w

alternatives on habitat on BLM- and FS-admims- 300 meters from watef Wsh (199Q) ed

tered lands were riparian management, grazing ^ ^^ f are found imaril in mamre

intensity, and conversion to exotic vegetation. and old owth habitats panelists stated that j

Declines in habitat on Federal lands from historic . near stfeams is umed to cause habitat

to current levels reflect these three factors (table degradation due to siltation.

4.5). Habitat on Federal lands was considered

important because it supplies the least altered con- Timber harvest, riparian buffers, and levels of

ditions for these toads, but some panelists indicat- restoration activities were important factors in

ed that Federal management alone could not evaluating the effects of the alternatives on habitat

improve or affect overall populations. Historic on BLM- and FS-administered lands. All prelimihabitat conditions are estimated at greater than 90 nary draft EIS alternatives have some likelihood of

percent likelihood of Outcomes 1, 2, or 3, where- Outcome 5. Cumulative effects analysis for the

as current conditions were estimated at 88 percent tailed frog populations projects higher likelihoods

likelihood of Outcomes 2, 3, or 4 (EEIS) or 95 of Outcome 5 under Alternatives 1 and 5 largely

percent likelihood of Outcome 3 or 4. Further due to the projected losses in Federal habitat

isolation of habitat is predicted under Alternatives under those alternatives.

Terrestrial 577
Table 4.5. Mean likelihood scores of viability outcomes for amphibians and reptiles for evaluation of

ICBEMP management alternatives. Likelihood scores for each period or alternative sum to 100 points.

High scores indicate high likelihood of an outcome. Means are calculated from the individual likelihood

scores of panelists.

Period / Alternative"

Group1 Species Name Area2 Outcome3 H C A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7

AMP Coeur d'Alene

salamander UCRB BLM/FS5 1 00000000 0

2 00000000 0

3 4 0 3 05050 5 1 0

4 50 63 45 65 70 70 45 70 75

5 10 33 55 30 30 25 55 25 15

UCRBCumEff 1 00000000 0

2 00000000 0

3 4 0 3000000 3

4 50 57 15 22 23 28 15 32 45

5 10 40 85 78 77 72 85 68 52

AMP Spotted frog

species B EEIS BLM/FS 1 2 0 0000000 0

2 3 0 0000000 0

3 35 60 30 65 60 65 33 65 73

4 10 30 50 25 30 25 50 25 20

5 5 10 20 10 10 10 18 10 8

EElSCumEff 1 2 0 0000000 0

2 3 0 0000000 0

3 35 60 25 58 53 58 28 58 65

4 10 30 55 30 35 30 55 30 25

5 5 10 20 13 13 13 18 13 10

UCRB BLM/FS 1 2 5 0000000 3

2 50 20 5 18 18 20 5 20 23

3 15 50 40 55 50 55 43 55 58

4 10 30 50 28 33 25 50 25 18

5 00500030 0

UCRBCumEff 1 2 5 0000000 0

2 50 20 0 18 18 18 3 18 20

3 15 50 40 50 45 50 40 50 55

4 10 30 55 33 38 33 55 33 25

5 00500030 0

AMP Northern

leopard frog EEIS BLM/FS5 1 00000000 0

2 1 7 0000000 0

3 50 17 0 10 0 15 0 15 20

4 33 20 27 30 40 30 35 30 30

5 0 63 73 60 60 55 65 55 50

EElSCumEff 1 00000000 0

2 1 7 0000000 0

3 5 0 1 7 000000 0

4 33 20 3 5 5 8 3 8 15

5 0 63 97 95 95 92 97 92 85

878 Terrestrial
Table 4.5 (continued)

Period / Alternative4

Group1 Species Name Area' Outcome3 H C A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7

UCRBBLM/FS5 1 30000000 0

2 3 3 0000000 5

3 33 0 0 10 0 20 0 25 30

4 30 30 7 27 37 33 30 35 35

5 0 70 93 63 63 47 70 40 30

UCRBCumEff 1 30000000 0

2 3 3 0000000 0

3 3 3 0000000 0

4 30 23 3 5 5 5 3 5 15

5 0 77 97 95 95 95 97 95 85

AMP Spotted frog

species A EEIS BLM/FS5 1 00000000 0

2 60 0 0 5 0 10 0 15 20

3 30 50 20 45 50 50 25 50 55

4 10 40 50 40 40 35 50 30 20

5 0 10 30 10 10 5 25 5 5

EElSCumEff 1 00000000 0

2 6 0 0000000 0

3 30 50 20 45 45 45 25 45 50

4 10 40 50 40 40 40 50 40 40

5 0 10 30 15 15 15 25 15 10

A M P Tailed frog EEIS BLM/FS 1 00000000 0

2 50 25 0 25 15 30 0 30 38

3 25 45 13 45 45 40 20 40 35

4 20 18 65 20 30 18 60 18 18

5 5 13 23 10 10 13 20 13 10

EElSCumEff 1 00000000 0

2 5 0 2 5 000000 0

3 25 45 8 48 33 45 10 45 55

4 20 18 25 38 43 38 30 38 33

5 5 13 68 15 25 18 60 18 13

UCRBBLM/FS 1 00000000 0

2 47 23 3 25 18 27 3 27 35

3 28 43 18 45 45 42 25 42 37

4 22 22 57 22 27 22 55 23 22

5 3 12 22 8 10 10 17 8 7

UCRBCumEff 1 00000000 0

2 4 7 2 3 355535 7

3 28 43 20 47 37 45 20 45 50

4 22 22 27 37 42 37 32 37 32

5 3 12 50 12 17 13 45 13 12

AMP Western toad EEIS BLM/FS 1 40 10 0 13 10 15 0 15 25

2 45 50 20 55 58 53 20 53 50

3 15 35 20 33 33 33 25 33 25

4 0 5 6 0 00 0 5 5 0 0

5 00000000 0

Terrestrial S79
Table 4.5 (continued)

Period / Alternative4

Group1 Species Name Area8 Outcome3 H C A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7

EElSCumEff 1 4 0 0000000 0

2 45 20 5 13 13 18 8 18 23

3 15 45 15 45 45 40 15 40 40

4 0 25 20 35 35 35 20 35 30

5 0 10 60 8 8 8 58 8 8

UCRBBLM/FS 1 27 7 0 8 7 10 0 10 17

2 43 45 15 42 43 40 15 40 40

3 23 33 23 35 33 33 28 35 30

4 7 13 55 12 13 13 52 12 12

5 02733353 2

UCRBCumEff 1 2 7 0000000 0

2 43 18 3 8 8 12 5 12 17

3 23 40 20 40 38 35 17 37 35

4 7 30 23 37 37 37 27 37 33

5 0 12 53 15 17 17 52 15 15

AMP Woodhouse's

toad EEISBLM/FS5 1 00000000 0

2 55 0 0 5 2 10 0 15 15

3 40 25 5 20 15 25 5 30 35

4 5 65 45 50 50 50 50 50 45

5 0 10 50 25 33 15 45 5 5

EElSCumEff 1 00000000 0

2 5 5 0000000 0

3 4 0 2 5 000000 0

4 5 65 30 45 45 50 35 50 55

5 0 10 70 55 55 50 65 50 45

UCRBBLM/FS5 1 00000000 0

2 25 0 0 5 2 10 0 15 15

3 50 30 5 20 15 25 5 30 35

4 25 65 55 50 50 50 55 50 45

5 0 5 40 25 33 15 40 5 5

UCRBCumEff 1 00000000 0

2 2 5 0000000 0

3 5 0 3 0 000000 0

4 25 65 30 35 35 43 30 43 45

5 0 5 70 65 65 58 70 58 55

REP Common

garter snake EEIS BLM/FS 1 5 0 0000000 0

2 50 50 0 50 50 50 0 50 50

3 0 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50

4 0 0 5 0 00 0 5 0 0 0

5 00000000 0

EElSCumEff 1 5 0 0000000 0

2 5 0 0000000 0

3 0 50 0 50 50 50 0 50 50

4 0 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50

5 0 0 5 0 00 0 5 0 0 0

880 Terrestrial